Re: [Thinkpad] [R40, a bit OT] Pros & Cons of NTFS vs FAT32?

I have seen other opinions here, but I have had tremendous luck that I
have charted since September 2002 on the ones I have installed.

I find NTFS installs to be faster, and significantly more reliable.
Problems practically non-existent with NTFS; a few problems, but still
good on a 2000 FAT 32. In comparison, Windows 98 SE which I once loved,
has been pure trouble.

Others on this list have reported that NTFS installs are slower than FAT
32. This is just not my experience.

My experience is limited to 600X, T-20, T22, X-20, and a bunch of T-30's
... of a variety of hard drives from 12 GB to 30 GB... none higher. But
I suspect the results are probably the same over the range of units
where the Thinkpad operates at 300 MHz or faster... Ideally, the
Thinkpad should be 500 MHz or faster and have a 12 GB HDD or larger.

XP and W2K have been very similar in that neither had significant
problems, and they are slightly faster on NTFS.

NTFS requires a little more experience when things go awry than FAT-32,
but that is more a case of having your reading materials and online
sources up to date. It is wise to download the special XP drivers for
setting up a four-disk floppy set of install software, and different
downloads are required for XP-Professional, and XP-Home. You cannot
create them from the XP CD, as you can from the W2K CD.

Ray

> It's coming with XPP, but my experience is almost solely
> with Win98SE clients (FAT32) and Win2K Server (NTFS).
>
> Does anyone have tips on the pros and cons choosing FAT32 or
> NTFS for a TP running XPP?
>
> I'm assuming I have to choose one or the other right at the
> outset, and that it would be a real pain to change the
> decision later.

-- 
There are 10 types of people out there.
Those who understand binary and those who don't.
_______________________________________________
Thinkpad mailing list
Thinkpad@stderr.org
http://stderr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/thinkpad