FAT is the Microsoft file system from the days of DOS, determining how much data could be stored in each disk cluster. FAT32 was a later version of it optimised for Windows 95/98/Me, previously FAT16 had only been used for DOS, and W3.11/WWG. NTFS is the NT file system and is far more advanced in terms of file compression, disk usage, data access times and security. if you're running XP/2000 I can see no argument for using FAT32 unless you have specific applications that demand it. FAT16 & FAT32 is much slower and far less secure. It was fine when we all used DOS and W3/3.11 on tiny 40mb hdds but for some years now it just hasn't cut the mustard. NTFS was used on big server drives only but storage isn't a problem these days.

this should explain it to you

trivia - Microsoft didn't invent NTFS, they bought it off someone else, who were called, coincidentall, "NT" (either Northern technology or Network technology, I can't remeber who it was now) but Microsoft kept the acronym, and renamed it "N ew T echnology"

Am i right in dimly recalling that MS didn't invent FAT either but got that off IBM at they same time they got DOS?



Edited by - Radio Free Tawakalnistan on 9/3/2004 2:14:16 PM

ithangew

Well, since we're on the topic, my other computer occasionally stagnates at the start screen (the one before the windows logo, it has a gateway symbol and asks you to hit tab or f1 to see certain messages). Wierdest thing is, after two or three tries, it works fine. It's nothing critical, just annoying. It's a pentium II, with a retro-fitted hard drive and is running Windows XP pro. It has SP2, if that affects anything. --- VH16

I am Nobody; Nobody is Perfect; Therefore, I am Perfect

Yes.... sort of kind of. FAT was IBM but much of DOS is Microsoft. They were contracted by IBM and co-developed it. How Gates got himself in front of that is quite a stroke of luck on the one hand and evidence of his business acumen on the other.

@VH.... assuming the other PC is older, it sounds like your battery is running down.

Edited by - Indy11 on 9/3/2004 4:48:08 PM

a P2 is pretty marginal for running XP on, prob with PC-100 memory, 133 at most, especially if its FAT on the hdd. I'm not surprised it chogs on booting. It'll run ok on a P3, however, if there's plenty of RAM and you NTFS it.

But you could run W2K fine on a P2.

Yeah, thanks. It's about 6 years old now, and I've heard that's usually max for a PC. I'll take a look at the clock next time I'm on it to see if the bios and stuff is messed up. Well, at least it's a hardware issue, those are generally easy to solve. --- VH16