Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS
- From: All Things Mopar <none_of_your@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:04:43 -0500
Today attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
linguistic utterance
why, exactly?
Security for one! FAT32 has no way of securing files
between one user and another, NTFS has file permissions and
EFS. Quotas & auditing for 2, you can't set quota limits or
audit file ownership on FAT32. Functionality for 3, NTFS
supports much larger disk sizes, also supports volume mount
points.
First, SP2 has no more security than did SP1 in this regard,
but it really doesn't matter in a single-use environment, that
used by the vast majority of XP users outside corporate IT
houses. Add to that the simple fact that "microsoft security"
is in the same class of oxymoron as "military intelligence" or
even the TLA "MAD", used during the Cold War, which was itself
a 3-word oxy - Mutually Assurred Distruction.
I agree with R. McCarty, now a days, I see no reason to useI use NTFS for my primary partitions and for one of my two
FAT32 on a single boot XP system. Only time I would use
FAT32 is between a dual boot OS where the other OS doesn't
support NTFS. Even then I'd use NTFS for the boot
partition, and FAT32 for a second data partition.
data partitions, primarily to get greater-than-4-gig file
sizes, not for performance, which is best described in my many
years of experience as "dismal".
But, as another said, YMMV. Cheers!
--
ATM, aka Jerry
"Rule breakers are always one step ahead of rule makers" -
Bert Sisson, referring to competition in 196x Mobil Gas
Economy Runs
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS
- From: Asher_N
- Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS
- References:
- Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS
- From: R. McCarty
- Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS
- From: All Things Mopar
- Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS
- From: benblackmore
- Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS
- Prev by Date: Re: XP's Search
- Next by Date: Re: Why can't I browse www.dn.se?
- Previous by thread: Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS
- Next by thread: Re: FAT32 vs. NTFS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|