Prev: ARGOSY - HD363N - Network Storage
Next: IBM ThinkPad R52/T43 Password Removal , RPC8394
From: Arno Wagner on 6 Nov 2006 23:46
Previously BRH <BRH> wrote:
> I got my WD My Book Essential (250 Gigs) installed using USB 2.0, thanks
> to the replies I got on an earlier thread.

> Now that it's up and running, "Properties" reports that there are approx
> 232 Gigs free on the drive. (It comes with some software on it, which
> takes up the rest of the space.) It also says that its formatted under
> FAT32. I've read that FAT32 has a 4Gig limit, which seems to contradict
> what I'm seeing under "Properties" for this drive.

That is a file size limit, not a filesystem size limit. You can have
a partition far larger than 4GB, but you cannot fill it up with
a single file.

> I also have an
> internal hard drive partition on my system of approx 60 Gigs that I have
> formatted under FAT 32.

> So what's the truth -- Is there a limit under FAT32 or not? If not,
> what's the advantage of converting this drive over to NTFS, which seems
> to be recommended in some of the online reviews I've read?

You get a fancier permission system with NTFS. That is about it.
Unlee you are unhappy with FAt32, I would stay with it in
your place.

Arno

From: Ed Light on 7 Nov 2006 16:22

"Arno Wagner" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote
> You get a fancier permission system with NTFS. That is about it.
> Unlee you are unhappy with FAt32, I would stay with it in
> your place.
Except NTFS is so much more resistant to corrupting files, like when the
power fails, OS crashes, etc.


--
Ed Light

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Send spam to the FTC at
spam(a)uce.gov
Thanks, robots.


From: Arno Wagner on 7 Nov 2006 21:03
Previously Ed Light <nobody(a)nobody.there> wrote:

> "Arno Wagner" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote
>> You get a fancier permission system with NTFS. That is about it.
>> Unlee you are unhappy with FAt32, I would stay with it in
>> your place.
> Except NTFS is so much more resistant to corrupting files, like when the
> power fails, OS crashes, etc.

I have not lost any data with FAT32 under XP. Before, especially
under DOS, it was a problem. I think it is not really anymore.

It may be that I have just been lucky.

Arno


From: Doug on 12 Nov 2006 20:57
Arno Wagner wrote:
> I have not lost any data with FAT32 under XP. Before, especially
> under DOS, it was a problem. I think it is not really anymore.
> It may be that I have just been lucky.
> Arno


Yes. I recently had a horribly messed up drive come back completely
after running chkdsk. I was stunned by the number of system messages I
received as one error after another was corrected. Good things were
going on that I'd never even heard of. All because the drive was NTFS
instead of FAT.

I am now a true believer.

Doug
From: Arno Wagner on 13 Nov 2006 08:56
Previously Doug <DouglasEllicenospam(a)nospamcomcast.net> wrote:
> Arno Wagner wrote:
>> I have not lost any data with FAT32 under XP. Before, especially
>> under DOS, it was a problem. I think it is not really anymore.
>> It may be that I have just been lucky.
>> Arno


> Yes. I recently had a horribly messed up drive come back completely
> after running chkdsk. I was stunned by the number of system messages I
> received as one error after another was corrected. Good things were
> going on that I'd never even heard of. All because the drive was NTFS
> instead of FAT.

> I am now a true believer.

You mean, because NTFS needs more repairs after a problem than
FAT, it is more save? That seems counterintuitive to me. Or did
I misunderstand?

Arno

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: ARGOSY - HD363N - Network Storage
Next: IBM ThinkPad R52/T43 Password Removal , RPC8394