Re: NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application
From: Tim Slattery (Slattery_T_at_bls.gov)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: Ken Blake: "Re: Address Bar and web pages"
- Previous message: Yves Leclerc: "Re: Keyboard Shortcut Gurus"
- In reply to: LinusF: "NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:08:18 -0500
LinusF <LinusF@discussions.microsoft.com> 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.
Use NTFS. FAT32 is a very poor choice for such a huge partition, to
begin with. FAT32 cannot handle files larger than 4GB, which you may
need for your images. NTFS is far more stable, far more robust, offers
advanced security capabilities that FAT32 does not have. And XP won't
create a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB, since NTFS is available and
is a *much* better choice.
-- Tim Slattery MS MVP(DTS) Slattery_T@bls.gov
- Next message: Ken Blake: "Re: Address Bar and web pages"
- Previous message: Yves Leclerc: "Re: Keyboard Shortcut Gurus"
- In reply to: LinusF: "NTFS vs FAT32 for Specific Application"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
