Q: I have partitioned the HD the way I want it and the Windows partition is NTFS (but I do not mind reinstalling XP because it does not take long) and the other partitions are currently unformatted. I can not decide which file to use on other partitions. Do I have the FAT32 partition, I intend on installing my games up? Ive heard that games play faster on FAT32. If this is true is the Windows FAT32 partition to be the best gaming performance to get? I have 5 other partitions next to my Windows one.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have not really set up my system yet so restarting is not a big deal. Can someone explain the advantages / disadvantages of each file and a recommendation I would use.
Thanks in advance.
Ron
Re:Thanks for all the help. I went ahead with all NTFS partitions and then went ahead and ran 3DMark2001 and my performane actually went up so I am happy. I like all the options that NTFS gives you and I have quite a few Win 95/98/ME bootdisks laying around along with several other machines running 98 or ME I can always come up with a solution to do firmware and BIOS flashes.
Re:partition with windows – ntfs
others – fat32
Re:I use NTFS because:
-it's fragementation resistant.
-its' performance doesn't decrease as the number of files in a folder increases.
-it reduces chances of file corruption if your machine wasn't shut down correctly.
Re:go get yourself a partition magic.
it'll really save you time configuring your partitions and formats.
as for my pc… i've setup my primary hd in two partition.
1. 37 gb ntfs. for os and programs.
2. 2 gb fat32 for flashing and driver storage.
this setup has worked for me just fine.
if it weren't for the fact that i can't access files in ntfs format in dos…
i would just keep everything in ntfs…
but since when i need to flash my bios and roms… i need to access files in dos…
i keep them in my second partition.
Re:<< Thanks for the info. I have read the FAQs and some posts in the OS forum (sorry, I didn't think to search there) and I have decided to use NTFS. >>
Glad to see you made a good informed decision 
Re:I've experimented with both Win2k and WinXP running in FAT32/NTFS. Performance wise, there is not much of a difference, but I did notice that both OS's seem to run a bit more stable under NTFS, or rather recovered from a system crash (and yes, it can still happen) better. Since NTFS is really the native environment for XP, I'd opt for that and not give it too much thought.
Re:My XP partition is NTFS, but all of the rest of the partitions I have are FAT32.
Re:Thanks for the info. I have read the FAQs and some posts in the OS forum (sorry, I didn't think to search there) and I have decided to use NTFS.
Re:<< Are you saying I should just use NTFS for every partition? >>
Do you have a need for FAT32? The sources I mentioned will help you make that decision.
Re:Are you saying I should just use NTFS for every partition?
Re:The performance difference is not noticable. There is a FAQ on this (too lazy to find the link for you) and plenty of threads in OS on this over the past few months.
0 Comments.