FAT32 versus NTFS

[aigle]

Without going into hard theoretical details I will like to know what is the disadvantage if I format my HD in FAT32 instead of NTFS. I will appreciate any replies from you.
Also will FAT32 be still an option in upcoming Vista?
Thanks!

[clansman77]

fat32 has more fragmentation and is less secure also i believe there is a performance difference.

[WSFuser]

NTFS also supports encryption and compression.

[aigle]

What do u mean by more secure Clansman.
So no file compression on FAT 32? I have currently NTFS.

[WSFuser]

under FAT32, there is no folder/file encrytion or compression.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3649/untitled4mg.jpg

There a limits to FAT32 ... file size for one is limited to 4GB minus 2 bytes

Here are some M$ articles about limitations of FAT32:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314463

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;184006

HTH;

Steve

[StevieO]

Quote from http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;314463

Originally Posted by MS

You cannot format a volume larger than 32 gigabytes (GB) in size using the FAT32 file system during the Windows XP installation process. Windows XP can mount and support FAT32 volumes larger than 32 GB (subject to the other limits), but you cannot create a FAT32 volume larger than 32 GB by using the Format tool during Setup.

Another option is to start from a Microsoft Windows 98 or Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Me) Startup disk and use the Format tool included on the disk.

_______________

So if you start out with blank HD or want to reformat etc, then it appears that you can have a volume larger than 32GB, if you use fdisk and/or partition software, before you install XP. You could instead partion several 32GB etc sections during a normal XP install.

_______________

Quote from http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;184006

Originally Posted by MS

The ScanDisk tool included with Microsoft Windows 95 and Microsoft Windows 98 is a 16-bit program. Such programs have a single memory block maximum allocation size of 16 MB less 64 KB. Therefore, The Windows 95 or Windows 98 ScanDisk tool cannot process volumes using the FAT32 file system that have a FAT larger than 16 MB less 64 KB in size. A FAT entry on a volume using the FAT32 file system uses 4 bytes, so ScanDisk cannot process the FAT on a volume using the FAT32 file system that defines more than 4,177,920 clusters (including the two reserved clusters). Including the FATs themselves, this works out, at the maximum of 32 KB per cluster, to a volume size of 127.53 gigabytes (GB).

_______________

That's something i wasn't aware of, and worth noting about the ScanDisk tool !

Thanks for the link


StevieO

[IMM]

The first biggie is the waste space issue. With FAT32 I've seen people try to load 'databases' made up of many! 10byte or so files (originally from a unix system) and choke the drive completely with almost no data. That said there are other considerations.

The nature of FAT32 is less 'secure' than ntfs. There aren't the same level of file permissions etc. and fat32 is easier to deal with from 'outside' the system.
This can be an advantage for those who look at malware etc. One of the things that often happens is that malware will turn permissions on a home system to it's own advantage - they often love them . If they can be kept out at the perimeter -- fine. If you are trying to fix something or analyze something or recover from an infection - then the permissions and encryption can be your enemy.

I often run a 'mixed' system with some fat32 on an XP (the boot partition) and some ntfs partitons for data because I like the crippled nature of shares and file perms for what I do.

Regarding FAT32 on Vista:
I haven't seen vista (nor has anyone I guess for whatever will be the final release form) but something like this
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/04...neier_infosec/
makes me guess that FAT32 won't be there?

[StevieO]

IMM

I agree, and precicely why i favour FAT32 over NTFS anyday. Being able to locate and find things that may be Malware of some kind, is a lot easier with FAT32 a partion/s and without those Alternate Data Streams of NTFS, where malware can and does hide from plain view.

Encryption of all kinds is widely available for FAT32, full/partial disk file/folder etc, and some very high quality Apps are to be had for free, so that's not a problem either !

To be fair, i don't think many people are going to fill up their HD with 10 byte etc stuff. I've got lots of things on my partions and it's nowhere near capacity, but i do clean up often which all helps.


StevieO

[Johnny123]

One other thing to consider in addition to security and less wasted disk space is that NTFS is a journaling file system. I don't see any reason for using FAT unless you have to, i.e., still using the 9.x's or if you need a data partition that you can access from a Linux system as well. Reading from an NTFS partition in Linux is no problem, writing to it, OTOH, can be risky.