Mollox Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Can someone sum this up for me in 1 line please? I understand it, just can't remember Also, this is all relevant cos a friend is making serious music running a lot of pro gear. Which would be be best? Also he thinks he wants a dual-boot of XP: one for music, one for other stuff. What do we think? Any other tips or tweaks that we think are relevant? Oh and is a firewire external drive faster for data read/transfer than an inboard IDE?? Isn't the limiting factor here the read speed? merci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snail Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 FAT = Anyone Can Read NTFS = Secure, better file handling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollox Posted January 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 ok, but what has disk size got to do with it? aren't you obliged to use one for partitions over a certain size. And on a standalone machine is security of this sort an issue? Thanks inigo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopsta Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 [ QUOTE ] FAT = Anyone Can Read NTFS = Secure, better file handling [/ QUOTE ] FAT = no permissions at file or share level NTFS = Only secure if you make it so, less fragmentation with files Remember that everything has a back door Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 Well there are a couple of performance considerations here...Basically the bigger the partition the better the benefit you get from NTFS in terms of performance really. NTFS good. FAT32 not so good - especially when bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollox Posted January 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 ta im so inquisitive aren't I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopsta Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Some would call it nosey Just remember that when setting shares up under NTFS it will default to 'Everyone' full permission. So you'll have to add the users you want (preferably via a group) and then remove the default permission. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 my mate built a music machine a while ago and i seem to remember that NTFS was the one to go for, also to change the cluster size for music use but can't remember what size. Jon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 [ QUOTE ] Oh and is a firewire external drive faster for data read/transfer than an inboard IDE?? Isn't the limiting factor here the read speed? [/ QUOTE ] Nope it will probably be slower. It will probably be an IDE drive inside your external device and you then have extra layers of complexity for the data to travel between before it gets to its destination. If you're really worried about disk performance look at IDE RAID or SCSI RAID if he's loaded. RAID isn't all about data protection, there are modes to help with performance. There are trade offs but I think they're acceptable. Cheers, Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollox Posted January 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Thanks, as I thought re the firewire - not a lot I can do now as he's gone and ordered a 120gig external...some people I don't quite get the relevance of NTFS security and the setting up of 'shares' on a standalone machine though... Is there any relevance on a standalone? ta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3ETT Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Not particularly - unless you want to hide your porn of course One consideration is the filesize limit on FAT. If you ever want to create DVD images on your PC - FAT wont allow you to create a file of 4.3GB - its too big. Windows XP / 2000 prefer NTFS, and performance wise there probably isnt much in it, so I'd go with the added benefits of NTFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollox Posted January 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 [ QUOTE ] One consideration is the filesize limit on FAT. If you ever want to create DVD images on your PC - FAT wont allow you to create a file of 4.3GB - its too big. [/ QUOTE ] ahhh now this is relevant - whats the FAT32 max file size then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopsta Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 No need for security if the PC is standalone, just the better file handling that NTFS gives. Its just called FAT with XP/2000 although its refering to FAT32 ala Win9x/ME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3ETT Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One consideration is the filesize limit on FAT. If you ever want to create DVD images on your PC - FAT wont allow you to create a file of 4.3GB - its too big. [/ QUOTE ] ahhh now this is relevant - whats the FAT32 max file size then? [/ QUOTE ] Its 2GB IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopsta Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 The 2Gb limit was for FAT16 and not FAT32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollox Posted January 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Graham its like getting fags out of a tramp with you! If 2gb ISN’T the max file size for FAT32, then WHAT is?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hopsta Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 [ QUOTE ] Graham its like getting fags out of a tramp with you! If 2gb ISN’T the max file size for FAT32, then WHAT is?? [/ QUOTE ] Dont bite the hands that feeds you Windows NT File Size and Partition Size Limits Not sure what the limit will be for XP, but thats a starter for ten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L3ETT Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 [ QUOTE ] The 2Gb limit was for FAT16 and not FAT32 [/ QUOTE ] Indeed you are correct its 4gb for fat32 (a dvd being 4.3GB in size) http://www.experts-exchange.com/Operating_Systems/MSDOS/Q_20343072.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now