XP and NTFS

[bill]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I did not use the NTSF option when I installed XP. (Either I didn't
see it come up during installation or I slept through it.) What
advantages would I gain from making the conversion now?

 

[PeterD]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

NTFS is more secure and reliable. Conversion from FAT to NTFS is
relatively painless (use the CONVERT commmand, type convert /? at a
command prompt for help.)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 05:48:07 -0500, Bill <bgross@nospan.airmail.net>
wrote:

>I did not use the NTSF option when I installed XP. (Either I didn't
>see it come up during installation or I slept through it.) What
>advantages would I gain from making the conversion now?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 05:48:07 -0500, Bill wrote:

> I did not use the NTSF option when I installed XP. (Either I didn't
> see it come up during installation or I slept through it.) What
> advantages would I gain from making the conversion now?

Are you sure you didn't? The XP install defaults to NTFS. Anyway, see
here:
<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/russel_october01.mspx>

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Yeff" <zoomie@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1bj1nhsabr7pp$.dlg@lemming.militia.com...
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 05:48:07 -0500, Bill wrote:
>
>> I did not use the NTSF option when I installed XP. (Either I didn't
>> see it come up during installation or I slept through it.) What
>> advantages would I gain from making the conversion now?
>
> Are you sure you didn't? The XP install defaults to NTFS. Anyway, see
> here:
> <http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/russel_october01.mspx>
>
> --
>
> -Jeff B.
> zoomie at fastmail dot fm


Jeff,

Though it's been a while (and I'm too lazy to google it), the OP could've
installed XP FAT32 up to a partition size of 32gb, I believe, depending on
the option selected when creating the partition. The FAT32 option remains
to this day.....


Stew

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

in my opinion,
all systems should use ntfs. i dont think twice about it now!

there is no reason not to. no significant downside.
the big benefit is a more stable disk structure.
if you crash a fat32 system, you have a greater chance of corrupting
your operating system than if you crash under ntfs.


Bill wrote:
> I did not use the NTSF option when I installed XP. (Either I didn't
> see it come up during installation or I slept through it.) What
> advantages would I gain from making the conversion now?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:32:11 -0500, S.Lewis wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Though it's been a while (and I'm too lazy to google it), the OP could've
> installed XP FAT32 up to a partition size of 32gb, I believe, depending on
> the option selected when creating the partition. The FAT32 option remains
> to this day.....

Yep, I know it's there, but you have to specifically select it. The OP
says he doesn't remember picking NTFS and my point is that, during an
install, it's picked for you. If you don't actively change it you get NTFS
by default.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:23:21 GMT, Yeff <zoomie@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:32:11 -0500, S.Lewis wrote:
>
[. . .]
>
>Yep, I know it's there, but you have to specifically select it. The OP
>says he doesn't remember picking NTFS and my point is that, during an
>install, it's picked for you. If you don't actively change it you get NTFS
>by default.

Can't recall how I figured this out, but I know that my backup
software breaks the drive up into a bundle of separate files. The
documentation that came with it says if you are not using NTFS it does
this due to limitation on file sizes

 

[Brian]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Bill <bgross@nospan.airmail.net> wrote:
> I did not use the NTSF option when I installed XP. (Either I didn't
> see it come up during installation or I slept through it.) What
> advantages would I gain from making the conversion now?

Encryption, access rights, more than 2 terabytes of addressable disk
storage, a different underlying cluster schema.

You'd know if you needed any of these. I've only ever been interested
in access rights myself.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Brian" <brian@rohan.sdsu.edu> wrote in message
news:dhh0qb$5e0$1@gondor.sdsu.edu...
> Bill <bgross@nospan.airmail.net> wrote:
>> I did not use the NTSF option when I installed XP. (Either I didn't
>> see it come up during installation or I slept through it.) What
>> advantages would I gain from making the conversion now?
>
> Encryption, access rights, more than 2 terabytes of addressable disk
> storage, a different underlying cluster schema.

close ...

In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 264 clusters minus 1 cluster.
However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows XP
Professional is 232 clusters minus 1 cluster. For example, using 64-KB
clusters, the maximum NTFS volume size is 256 terabytes minus 64 KB. Using
the default cluster size of 4 KB, the maximum NTFS volume size is 16
terabytes minus 4 KB.


Maximum file size Theory: 16 exabytes minus 1 KB (264 bytes minus 1
KB)
Implementation: 16 terabytes minus 64 KB
(244 bytes minus 64 KB)

Maximum volume size Theory: 264 clusters minus 1 cluster
Implementation: 256 terabytes minus 64
KB ( 232 clusters minus 1 cluster)

Files per volume 4,294,967,295 (232 minus 1 file)

1 Exabyte = 1,000,000 Terabytes

>
> You'd know if you needed any of these. I've only ever been interested
> in access rights myself.
>

 

[STUBBY]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

NuTCrAcKeR wrote:
> "Brian" <brian@rohan.sdsu.edu> wrote in message
> news:dhh0qb$5e0$1@gondor.sdsu.edu...
>
>>Bill <bgross@nospan.airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I did not use the NTSF option when I installed XP. (Either I didn't
>>>see it come up during installation or I slept through it.) What
>>>advantages would I gain from making the conversion now?
>>
>>Encryption, access rights, more than 2 terabytes of addressable disk
>>storage, a different underlying cluster schema.
>
>
> close ...
>
> In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 264 clusters minus 1 cluster.
> However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows XP
> Professional is 232 clusters minus 1 cluster. For example, using 64-KB
> clusters, the maximum NTFS volume size is 256 terabytes minus 64 KB. Using
> the default cluster size of 4 KB, the maximum NTFS volume size is 16
> terabytes minus 4 KB.
>

Close, but no cigar. The actual theoretical maximum volume size is 2 to
the 64th power clusters, minus one cluster. 2 to the 64th power =
18,446,744,073,709,551,616 clusters. As implemeted in Windows XP Pro,
the maximum volume size is 2 to the 32nd power, minus one cluster, or
4,294,967,295 clusters in a volume.


--
Annoy a conservative -- Think for yourself.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

>>
>> In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 264 clusters minus 1 cluster.
>> However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows XP
>> Professional is 232 clusters minus 1 cluster. For example, using 64-KB
>> clusters, the maximum NTFS volume size is 256 terabytes minus 64 KB.
>> Using the default cluster size of 4 KB, the maximum NTFS volume size is
>> 16 terabytes minus 4 KB.
>>
>
> Close, but no cigar. The actual theoretical maximum volume size is 2 to
> the 64th power clusters, minus one cluster. 2 to the 64th power =
> 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 clusters. As implemeted in Windows XP Pro, the
> maximum volume size is 2 to the 32nd power, minus one cluster, or
> 4,294,967,295 clusters in a volume.
>
>
> --
> Annoy a conservative -- Think for yourself.

i lifted the information i posted direclty off the MSDN site ...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

> there is no reason not to. no significant downside.
> the big benefit is a more stable disk structure.
> if you crash a fat32 system, you have a greater chance of corrupting
> your operating system than if you crash under ntfs.

On the flipside, it can be a lot harder to recover data from an NTFS
drive when XP spits its dummy out - and it will - particularly with
multi-user accounts.

--
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:32:16 +0100, Colin Wilson wrote:

>> there is no reason not to. no significant downside.
>> the big benefit is a more stable disk structure.
>> if you crash a fat32 system, you have a greater chance of corrupting
>> your operating system than if you crash under ntfs.
>
> On the flipside, it can be a lot harder to recover data from an NTFS
> drive when XP spits its dummy out - and it will - particularly with
> multi-user accounts.

BartPE is your friend... <http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/>

Make a bootable live Windows CD and Bob's yer uncle. I've got one in my
emergency "toolbox" and it can easily access my NTFS formatted drive.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

 

[Brian]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

NuTCrAcKeR <nutcracker@internationalhacker.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> In theory, the maximum NTFS volume size is 264 clusters minus 1 cluster.
>>> However, the maximum NTFS volume size as implemented in Windows XP
>>> Professional is 232 clusters minus 1 cluster. For example, using 64-KB
>>> clusters, the maximum NTFS volume size is 256 terabytes minus 64 KB.
>>> Using the default cluster size of 4 KB, the maximum NTFS volume size is
>>> 16 terabytes minus 4 KB.
>>>
>>
>> Close, but no cigar. The actual theoretical maximum volume size is 2 to
>> the 64th power clusters, minus one cluster. 2 to the 64th power =
>> 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 clusters. As implemeted in Windows XP Pro, the
>> maximum volume size is 2 to the 32nd power, minus one cluster, or
>> 4,294,967,295 clusters in a volume.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Annoy a conservative -- Think for yourself.

> i lifted the information i posted direclty off the MSDN site ...

Oddly enough, so did I! 😀

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

> Make a bootable live Windows CD and Bob's yer uncle. I've got one in my
> emergency "toolbox" and it can easily access my NTFS formatted drive.

I know, i`ve got one, but I still prefer being able to access via DOS as
its almost always possible to get hold of a bootable DOS disk in an
emergency.

--
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:15:31 +0100, Colin Wilson wrote:

>> Make a bootable live Windows CD and Bob's yer uncle. I've got one in my
>> emergency "toolbox" and it can easily access my NTFS formatted drive.
>
> I know, i`ve got one, but I still prefer being able to access via DOS as
> its almost always possible to get hold of a bootable DOS disk in an
> emergency.

DOS, a live Windows CD, or a live Linux distro, as long as you're
comfortable working in the recovery environment you've chosen it's all
good. <g>

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm