How do i get NTFS back to FAT32?

Discussion in 'Windows' started by SPCartmanland, Nov 27, 2008.

  1. SPCartmanland

    SPCartmanland

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    when i put xp on my aspire one last night i used ntfs b/c i figured that was the best well then after i found out i should have used fat32 but now when i go to reformat and install the only options are ntfs or fat im installing with just fat right now to see how that goes . is fat32 alot better then fat or whats the deal?
     
    SPCartmanland, Nov 27, 2008
    #1
  2. SPCartmanland

    rory

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London, UK
    fat is fat32
    except fat doesnt have a 32gb size limit, thats why macs can make fat partitions any size...
     
    rory, Nov 27, 2008
    #2
  3. SPCartmanland

    nmesisca

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    The different formats are:
    - FAT16
    - FAT32 (now normally referred to as FAT32)
    - NTFS

    the difference between FAT16 and FAT32 are mainly the max supported size of the volumes. FAT16 max volume is 4GB and FAT32 max size is 128GB. The limit of 32GB comes from the tool you use to format the drive. If you use a 3rd party tool you can format the partitions up to 128GB. The format tool with Macs allows you to format up to 128GB.
    This is NOT recommended by MS as highly inefficient for large volumes (bigger then 32GB), and it is the reason why the limit is enforced in the MS operating systems.
    Reading and writing on the partition after its been formatted to up to 128GB can be done without using any 3rd party apps.


    you can read more on :
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodte ... x?mfr=true
     
    nmesisca, Nov 27, 2008
    #3
  4. SPCartmanland

    TheBigCheese

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would you want FAT? Next time you get a freeze up and lose most of your data, you'll wish you used NTFS. The claim that FAT systems have better performance is unproven IMHO
     
    TheBigCheese, Nov 29, 2008
    #4
  5. SPCartmanland

    nmesisca

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ireland
    for large file systems, it is proven that NTFS has quite a few advantages.
    but for smaller ones FAT is more efficient.
    I believe the OP was presented with the FAT/NTFS choice, but implicitly FAT stands for FAT32 as FAT16 is rarely used anymore (excluding removable media etc)
     
    nmesisca, Nov 29, 2008
    #5
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.