FAT32 is "faster" in most respects than NTFS.wesley said:why?
NTFS>FAT32, FAT32 will not hold any file that is bigger than 4GB
JimpsEd said:FAT32 is "faster" in most respects than NTFS.
JimpsEd said:FAT32 is "faster" in most respects than NTFS.
M0KUJ1N said:Last Accessed Timestamp IIRC?
Do a google search for that or NTFS performance tuning and you should find various hacks to speed up NTFS.
I can think of a legitimate reason to do what the OP wants actually- if the disk is being used on multiple OSes then it makes sense to have it formatted as FAT32 for compatibility
Not really, most people looking to squeeze every last drop of performance from their rig maintain smaller partitions across (say) a 500GB drive - one for OS, one for games, one for documents etc.bledd. said:i call bs
fat32 is only faster on smaller (older and crapper) drives
-edit, plus the data integrity is far better on ntfs
• The FAT structure is simpler.
• The FAT folder size is smaller for an equal number of files.
• FAT has no controls regulating whether a user can access a file or a folder; therefore, the system does not have to check permissions for an individual file or whether a specific user has access to the file or folder. This advantage is minimal because Windows 2000 still has to determine if the file is read-only, or whether the file is on a FAT or NTFS volume.
Format it using the FAT32 file system. Although the version of NTFS in Windows XP has features that make it perform better than earlier versions of NTFS, you can still eek out some performance gains for small volumes by formatting them as FAT32 instead of NTFS. I'm not overly concerned about the lack of security from not having pagefile.sys protected by NTFS permissions since it's an unreadable binary file. If someone hacked into my system, they wouldn't need to bother with the paging file anyway.