Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

NTFS or FAT32?

Discussion in 'Diablo 2 Community Forum' started by Absolutian, Mar 28, 2004.

  1. Absolutian

    Absolutian IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    NTFS or FAT32?

    Hi, friends.

    Been searching the net for a while, and can't find advice. Searched here, Blizzard, and yahooing....

    Got a brand new computer, am installing Win XP Pro. No experience with it.
    Decision is NTFS or FAT32. One HD so far. Computer will be used for games, and watching DVDs. No serious business applications.

    Our primary games on this new computer are D2X, Starcraft, and Baldur's Gate2. We have 2-3 other computers on a hub, all running Win98SE. We play multiplayer D2 and Starcraft across the LAN.

    What's my best choice? Seems NTFS is faster for big files, and FAT32 is faster for little files. Some advice I've seen is essentially "take my new blank HD and partition it...NTFS for the OS, and FAT32 for the data". Not sure that that would help our gaming.

    How does D2 fit in this scheme? Mostly big file work or little?

    TIA
     
  2. Baboon

    Baboon IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    Well if you have a new (I guess fast) computer you can't go wrong with NTFS.

    It isn't really important actually, you won't notice any difference. NTFS does have some advanced options, but if you don't know them you probably won't need them. NTFS is a bit faster than fat32, at least I read that somewhere.
     
  3. Absolutian

    Absolutian IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Sorry, I meant to imply fast. AMD 2500+. But I only spent for 256Meg RAM, as I was originally going to transfer a win98 HD from an older computer...didn't see the need yet for more RAM.

    I've heard about incompatibilites with older games, but I'm not too worried about that, as we have the older computers to handle that.
     
  4. Fast Willie

    Fast Willie IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    ntfs and fat32 are both good choices, but I prefer OTF.
     
  5. Valind

    Valind IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Go with NTFS. It's a more efficient file system than FAT32.
     
  6. Absolutian

    Absolutian IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    161
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    This is XP Pro, also, not Home. Read at one site, that some folks had problems with D2 on Pro, but not Home.
     
  7. robochan

    robochan IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    reiserfs :)
     
  8. Rejiu-II

    Rejiu-II IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    yes, resierfs.

    seriously, go NTFS unless a Mac or Linux box needs access to some files on that disk. Then go fat32, because NTFS support in Linux is botchy.
     
  9. Jimmeh

    Jimmeh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    i use fat32 cause i play alot of games

    but i guess ntfs is better for "serious" people :]
     
  10. Lord Chaos

    Lord Chaos IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Just disable the "last access" thing for NTFS, that will speed it up.
     
  11. Jugalator

    Jugalator IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    This isn't true -- the difference between Pro and Home shouldn't affect compatibility with D2 whatsoever. I've never had problems running XP in Pro. Even the graphics/sounds drivers etc are compatible, which are usually the factor that cause the problems. Home is just less than Pro, or if you want, a subset of Pro. It can't do anything more than Pro.

    As for the file systems, here's the summary from this document:

    FAT highs:

    * The effective work requires few of RAM.
    * Fast work with small and average directories.
    * The disc implements less movements of the heads (as compared with NTFS).
    * The effective work on slow discs.

    FAT lows:

    * Quick performance decrease with the fragmentation going up (only for FAT32).
    * Difficulty in access to big files (more than 10% of the disc space).
    * Very slow work with directories containing huge amount of files.

    NTFS highs:

    * Fragmentation does not influence the system performance (the work might became worse as far as data access is concerned).
    * Complicity of the structure of directories and the number of files do not affect the performance.
    * Quick access to the required file fragment (i.e. editing of big .wav files).
    * Very quick access to small files (several hundreds bytes) - the whole file is located in the same place as the system data (MFT recording).

    NTFS lows:

    * The memory size mustn't be less than 64 MBytes.
    * Slow discs and controllers without Bus Mastering slows the system performance down tremendously.
    * The work with average-size directories is quite difficult, since they are fragmented.
    * The disc working for a long time with 80% - 90% of its space occupied shows low performance.

    ---

    In short, pick NTFS if you have a modern hard drive and like 256+ MB RAM (which you should better have!). Pick FAT32 if you have a crappy system with today's standards (like a sub-P4 processor). NTFS benefits from good hardware better than FAT32, while FAT32 doesn't need as good hardware for decent performance on the other hand. Keep in mind that boot disks aren't compatible with NTFS though.
     
  12. Anti-Flagger13

    Anti-Flagger13 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    I have Pro, and I don't seem to have any problems.
     
  13. Usufruct

    Usufruct IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Yeah there is little kernel difference between home and pro. Programs that run on home WILL run on Pro and achieve the exact same performance and vice versa.
     
  14. pipermac

    pipermac IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    560
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    NTFS

    There is very Little reason to use fat32.
    with NTFS Fragmentation is on almost no concern and it is much more secure.

    I am a:

    MCSE
    CCNP
    MCA
    XRF
    MBHI
    ABCD and
    XYZE

    Ok some of those obviously are not real but the point is that I make my living at this stuff and I have never come across a compelling reason to use Fat32 over NTFS

    The only real logical time to use Fat32 is if you paln to duel boot your system

    and there is NO diference between Home and PRO that would change the way programs run. If it runs under one....it runs under the other.
     
  15. neophase

    neophase Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ntfs for win XP pro and home
    fat32 for win98
    98 is meant for old games (the classics), xp is just newer, faster and more secure.

    Take advantage of the security features in xp though and ntfs, that's prob ur best bet. Unless there's a game you're dying to play from an old comp, you can always either add an extra HD for dual booting and use that for fat32 (like a 5 gig HD), as opposed to the big HD you got with the comp.

    Im really hoping you got ddr400 ram,or pc4000, cause if not... I aint gonna judge but cmon, you could have cut the life of your computer by 1/3!

    That's the thing with all these big companies like dell, gateway and HP and so on... watch out for that, and spend like a fanatic on the motherboard!! ;)
     
  16. wangzhonnew2

    wangzhonnew2 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    actually, i see u only have 256M memory. I don't recommend u install winXP system. winXP cost losts of resources for it's GUI. but i think it's really not so importnat. I recommand u use win2K prof. which will be much faster than winXP on your 256M mem computer. Usually, winXP can be used on those computers who got more than 512M memory.
     
  17. pipermac

    pipermac IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    560
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    This statement is completely false.

    256MB of ram for XP is completely fine. and the Memory requirements for WinXP compared to 2000 are almost identical.

    To test this..in the middle of an average computer session open task manager and view the used memory. you will find that you are almost always under 256 MB of ram.

    Unless you load a lot of Crap programs that run everythime the computer starts and hogs the memory. But that is the software not the OS using up the memory.
     
  18. Lord Chaos

    Lord Chaos IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    I ran with a 1.5 Ghz P4 with 256 Mb RAM for many years and switched to XP when it came out...it ran very well on 256 Mb RAM.

    BUT...that being said, with todays standards and the increased memory usage of XP, applications and integrated components, 512 Mb RAM is really recommended for making XP run completely smoothly through most usage.

    1024 Mb RAM is recommended if you use alot of programs, especially memory intesive ones...When I upgraded to a 2.8 Ghz P4, I put 1 Gbit PC3200 RAM in it too...best thing I ever did, XP spins and purrs like a kitten.
     
  19. pipermac

    pipermac IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    560
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120

    I bet you will find that you are almost never using more then 512MB

    Unless you are using some very memory intensive programs..Video editing etc etc

    there are very very few computer users that will actually make use of 1 gig of memory. 512mb will almost always be more then enough.
     
  20. Lord Chaos

    Lord Chaos IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Actually I use more than 512 Mb all the time...you will also find you'll get above it if you force XP not to use the swap file much.

    But yes, atm, a regular user will not find that 1024 Mb is all that much more helpful than 512 Mb...but considering the increases in usage overall by programs, its not an unwise investment given the low price of RAM.
     

Share This Page