- Should I use fat32 for win2k pro? or ntfs?
- Posted by The Prynce on July 2nd, 2003
Hooray for Win2k! Am I the only one in love with it? I mean, it's got
the NT stability but doesn't take as much poo as XP. I love 2k.
Hooray!
And for the record, I use NTFS. I even did the unGodly thing of
converting from FAT to NTFS when I upgraded from 98SE. It's nice and
stable. =)
-=The Prynce
"Ricardo M. Urbano - W2K/NT4 MVP" <rmu1@columbiaSPAM.SUCKSedu> wrote in
news:3E315D34.68C63D5F@columbiaSPAM.SUCKSedu:
- Posted by nospamng@will-enterprises.com> on July 2nd, 2003
You might check the cluster sizes of your converted NTFS volumes. They are
probably 512 bytes, and disk performance will suck relative to your old disk
format as a result. :-)
On 2 Jul 2003 01:37:46 GMT, The Prynce <webmaster@theprynce.com> wrote:
- Posted by help@hand on July 4th, 2003
Stay with fat32 for speed .. ntfs will considerably degrade performance ..
fat 32 for home use ..
"The Prynce" <webmaster@theprynce.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93ABDBF4957ECwebmastertheprynceco@130.133. 1.4...
- Posted by derek / nul on July 5th, 2003
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 09:40:55 +1000, "help@hand" <hathcomp@tpg.com.au> wrote:
I load of rubbish I am afraid
- Posted by neopolaris on July 5th, 2003
"derek / nul" <abuse@sgrail.org> wrote in message
news
i5cgvcdtrhievbvqt6v0iqdi7pq1d7tfc@4ax.com...
I have to agree. NTFS does not degrade performance.
