Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application
From: Yves Leclerc (yleclercNOSPAM_at_maysys.com)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: Yves Leclerc: "Re: Font colour"
- Previous message: R. McCarty: "Re: Adding Memory"
- In reply to: Steve N.: "Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Next in thread: Ken Blake: "Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Reply: Ken Blake: "Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Reply: Steve N.: "Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:38:21 -0500
FAT32 limitations:
Can not create/format partition greater than 32GB
File size must be less than or equal to 4GB (???)
No files/folder security.
"Steve N." <Steve_N@nunya.biz.nes> wrote in message
news:%23X89DsxAFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> LinusF wrote:
>
>> I have an external 250GB hard drive which will be used almost solely to
>> hold images. PSD, TIF, JPG, GIF in that order of frequency. Sizes will
>> range from 2GB (a very few), 8-15 MB maybe 10%, 3-6 MB (maybe 40%), 1-3
>> MB (maybe 30%), smaller (all the rest. An unknown percentage of the HD
>> will temporarily hold backups from the fixed drives. Question: which
>> system should provide more space/speed/whatever? I use WinXP Pro on both
>> machines this HD will attach to. Thanks
>
> Use NTFS, it is much more robust in general and more efficient for large
> drives than FAT32 is. There's no reason to use FAT32 unless you need to
> access the drive from Win98/ME.
>
> Steve
- Next message: Yves Leclerc: "Re: Font colour"
- Previous message: R. McCarty: "Re: Adding Memory"
- In reply to: Steve N.: "Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Next in thread: Ken Blake: "Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Reply: Ken Blake: "Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Reply: Steve N.: "Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|