It's other factors, like how the OS deals with the file system.
Also, seemingly identical devices are NOT that identical. The factors involved in their production can't really make perfect ones that work exactly the same.
So this was from April '07, even at that time these machines were pathetically slow examples of laptop technology and obviously not brand new which throws a major wrench in the legitimacy of this example. The slight difference seen here could be a slight difference in hw performance or even file placement on each. Yes, it's known that NTFS had some performance overhead but those things that take that extra overhead can also be turned off. Terrible account name, that should be turned off as well.
You shoud use average 2003 rigs for this test as this is 2003 system. RAM is ok but the cpu should be 1 GHz. At least! I don't like FAT-32 system simply because of 4 GB filesize limit. This makes downloading modern games from torrents pretty much impossible and you have to use annoying rapidshare-esque sites with parted files (and required premium accounts to be efficient with 50 Mb/s net :/)
NFTS is the technology slow in the world because that is problem the laptop is slow this is problem you need upgrade your NTFS to windows 7 only not xp the xp is so slow than win 7....
Co to kurwa za odkrycie?! Do księgi rekordów haha:D I przy okazji - jebać holendrów, którzy nie wiedzą co to jest piękna Polska a na nią napieprzają!:P
You guys are mistaking FAT32 for Win98. Whenever you did something stupid on Win9x, CHKDSK will run on the next boot. XP stability + FAT32 wins. hard.
@pufixas Why would you ever want to save a file over 4GB? You said earlier actually you can save a 4GB file on it - 4GB is the MAXIMUM file size you can store on FAT32
All things aside NTFS wins in the end simply because max file size in FAT32 is 2GB. I have a lot of files that are bigger than 2GB... mostly blue ray rips etc. FAT32 can't read them or store them :(
JESUS! Look at the description people! It is THE same model... (meaning that the HDD is also the same...) I'd think that he created 2 fully empty partitions and installed them that way.... omg.. why do you always assume immediately that the uploader is stupid...?? It could be that you are, you know...!
Such a small difference is within the random variation between different hard drives; the test demonstrates nothing. Timing each one on the same laptop and running the videos side-by-side would be much more informative.
Normally boot time is a reasonable test of computer speed, but in case of FAT vs NTFS it may be wrong because system spends time checking disk integrity.
@14wasp : ah, well that's a great point. :P I didnt think of that, but i guess it's useful for like a usb that holds simple word documents or w.e (either way, ive always used NTFS)
So your point is, something which is slightly faster but not that good, than something that is better, but slightly slower is the lesser choice. So you voted for George W. Bush, didn't you! You terrorist!
It's pretty good we have computers that are quick enough at using clever partition types such as NTFS where we have the security and reliability that at one time was reserved only to high-end servers and workstations.
@DamageIncM Windows 8 have better performance and security, than 7 (of course it's terrible, compare with Linux but it's better than Windows 7). Why you don't like? Because UI is much more different? Win 8 is optimized for tablets, it supports touch screen gestures, witch is more handy than standard Desktop UI.
I've installed Windows 8 DP on VM and it works better than 7. it's optimized to be faster and safer.
@DamageIncM I understand your opinion, but Touchscreens are really very handy.
How are you going to use it if I don't you have a touchscreen?
You can use it with mouse, but it's very very uncomfortable :) MS strategy is exactly that! Buy new PC with little discount! And get comfort (They're saying that), this is commercialism! and one of the reasons why to use Linux!
@DamageIncM No, I mean Microsoft no longer sells WinXP and makes problems on It. For example dX10 or later, WMP12, IE9... Of course those things suck and there are many better Open Source alternatives (dirextX -> OpenGL, WMP -> VLC MP, IE -> Firefox, Chrome...), but M$ tries everything. They will continue this politic.
I mean, I think the software-support will last for quite a while compared to XP.
XP might be older in software but it works, but W7 is still a more recent thing, XP was from 2001 and Vista came in like 2006/7 and Windows 7 2009 or so?
So, I think in comparison, Windows 7 would have longer to last.
It also depends if software-developers still keep in mind W7.
I don't care about Microsuck's stupid commercial plants.
It's clear, that non-M$ developers will support XP, while it has users :D it's axiom. M$ can't compel them to stop supporting.
Windows Vista, 7, 8 all those versions are on almost same kernel, WinNT 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, and have same driver platform (If device works on Vista, it might work on 7 & 8. 2000, XP, 2003 kernel versions are 5.x and they have much different driver platform.
@NamelessNLS VLC is faster and more stable palyer than wmp, supports almost every formats, uses less resources and also has better quality graphics. It's Free and Open Source, cross platform media player. Supported OSs: GNU/Linux, Android, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, QNX, Syllable, Mac OS X, iOS, OS/2 and Microsuck Shitous. It's default UI isn't skinned, but you can turn on skinned interface, download pretty cool skins and have lot of fun!
@NamelessNLS LOL MPC and K-Lite are open-source projects of sourceforge too :P yes MPC has better DirectX support (It's developed 100% for Windows) than VLC, but VLC supports OpenGL fully, therefore it's the best on Linux desktop. If you install OpenGL on Windows, it'll be the best on it too (In all components)! OpenGL is much better than DirectX, but it's not supported by all games (but supporters has better performance and speed on it)...
@NamelessNLS WMP is shitty close player, slow and instable. It lacks formats, that's cause it needs additional codecs (Witch are Open Source projects too) to play many videos.
WMP SUCKS, WINDOWS SUCKS, ALL M$ PRODUCTS SUCK, M$ SUCKS!
NTFS has a massive major security flaw, along with Windows.
One can set a locked NTFS volume up as a a second drive on a Windows machine and access everything, it is the boot drive that sets permissions.
And, I have configured drives with a small FAT16 partition (2047mb) in addition to everything else, as nearly every OS can read it, and put recovery files there.
With that done I can run anything, read and reconstruct, a live thumb drive and a few minutes and I am good.
Seriously? You realize that FAT32 works better some people and NTFS works better for others for commercial applications. Apples and oranges. If you're debating about the file system of your home computer you might have OCD issues. I recommend going to your doctor and letting him/her know you're fucked in the head because you continue to argue about a file system of a hard drive on your computer.
@denmar411 dude, he's just comparing the two's speed. FAT32 is better at keeping system performance and NTFS is better at keeping it stable. I literally just learned that. pick a fight with me if you think otherwise, this guy is just paying extra to show us something we couldn't find out without forking over a bit extra money.
But as far as a direct comparison, it's pretty obv. that FAT32 would win here. It's a less structured filesystem, but as others said - the drawbacks are huge. 4GB filesize limit, 2TB volume limit, and the fact that CHKDSK is be open all the time makes it not worth it.
@WindowsLover6767 plus, NTFS lets you compress your hard drive to save space, unlike FAT32. Plus, FAT32's file size restriction is a 4GB File. NTFS = any size file: from 1KB to your hard drive space. However, FAT32 is only recognized by the Xbox 360, not NTFS... yet.
Um... so FAT32 is slightly faster to boot windows than NTFS... Great. No way in hell would I put my OS partition on a FAT32 drive again and enter CHKDSK hell.
I'd much rather have 2 seconds slower boot up time and have all the excellent features of NTFS thanks!
@OneThousand98 I have a nice 160 GB SATA drive that if you convert it to NTFS It corrupts the MBR. Soo, i have to run fat32. I HATE HOW WHEN IT SHUTs DOWN WroNG AND DOES A CHK DSK.
You need a history check-up man....... MaC brought every thin of the competition together and made something better. Only thin that mac "invented" but still Bill gates wrote it was the OS. Microsoft wrote the first Os for their machine. Only thin original thing i think @ the time apple Invented was the Ipod still a better version of the mp3/walkman/portable cd player. Iphone was the real original.
@StandupH2o Apple brought popularity to MP3/MP4 players, tablets, Smart Phones, UNIX *Although it was well-known before in the tech world, it was ONLY known in the tech-world* and also they're the only company *That I know of* that makes their own hardware and software and make it so expensive. I am by no means an Apple Fan-Boy, in fact I dislike Steve Jobs and his cronies, but I do respect their existence, Apple has made tons of stuff. So has Microsoft, and so has UNIX/GNU/Linux
@UgotMiniJacked Apple did not introduce the mouse or GUI. Xerox did. The first version of the Lisa was pretty horrible until Apple basically copied many elements of the Xerox Star workstation. They refined that over the next few years and released the Macintosh.
As much as Apple would like to point fingers at MS, claiming MS steals ideas, Apple is just as guilty of it.
@UgotMiniJacked You're not comparing alike hardware here. Furthermore, the old Mac OS was far more primitive and lightweight than Mac OS X, Linux or Windows today.
@UgotMiniJacked And you are comparing with hardware that is at least 7+ years old? I'm almost certain macs that have 7+ year old hardware functions just the same. With the recent release of windows 7 the startup time is no longer an issue as it was before.
For all of those praising NTFS's features you are precisely missing my point: While ARCnet may have extra "features" that ensure stability, those "features" would slow the protocol down for all but system control purposes. The features in NTFS are NOT necessarily essential for normal client usage. For one thing 4kb clusters would mean an ENORMOUS FAT.
FAT32 was based off a file system DOS inherited from CP/M. NTFS allows many, many more file-system level security features to be used. Considering the difference in boot time is minimal and has never been a good measure of overall performance, NTFS is a clear winner. Plus FAT32 couldn't handle modern hard drive sizes, while NTFS probably has another decade of life left in that regard. Either way the point's moot, Windows XP is obsolete.
@panton41 XP isn't necessarily obsolete until Microsoft stops support entirely. Something being obsolete is all relative on that note. Legacy equipment more or less can achieve the same thing. And since most people use their computers for dauntless tasks, computing power is wasted.
What were the exact conditions here? Were both systems booting off a fresh install? If not, then there are too many variables here and it's not really a fair comparison. However, I'm also with cruelmo on the idea that 3 seconds really doesn't mean a whole lot.
This test is not meaningful. I did a test with a friend comparing two Casio calculators, the same model, making the same long operation. My calc took 5 seconds more than my friend's. Mine was newer.
Have you tried the same test, using NTFS in left laptop and FAT in the right one?
NTFS is a far better filesystem than FAT32. A unclean shutdown requires a filesystem check on FAT32 or else all kinds of horrible things may happen. NTFS is way more robust but it does have it's flaws. Compared to FAT32 however there is not much point in not using NTFS at least not on modern CPU's. For fileservers I would rather pick a more robust filesystem and a unix like operating system. Most "standard" users would be better off with NTFS than anything else (FAT32 that is).
@GABOMAN742 You have to decide for yourself what is best for you. Ext3 have the advantage that is is very stable and that you have a good chance for recovery if anything should go wrong. For my own backups I use btrfs who is again backed up on a ext4 filesystem.
If you google around for the pros and cons for the various filesystem you will find out for yourself! Good luck!
FAT32 is a better option than NTFS on memory sticks, flash drives and in many cases external harddrives, as it's more compatible with different stuff. I had to format my external HD to FAT32 to be able to use it with my PS3, as it won't be recognized if formatted with NTFS for instance.
@cakestalker FAT32 has it uses yes. I would also like to point out that FAT32 is by itself not more compatible but more products support it. NTFS is a far better filesystem but I would stress that there are far better filesystems out there if you really need to trust your data. So for any important storage you would be better off with a raid setup and backups. For filesystems research is everything. Wikipedia is a good start ;)
@Slurfs Not more compatible, but more products support it??? LOL! I can come with some more. Ice is not cold, but it is frozen. Water is not liquid, but it flows.
@Slurfs Yes, a good starting point would be to try and learn the proper use of "its", "it's", and all the other pronouns (and adverbs) alike, such as "his", "he's", "your", "you're", "there", "their", "they're", etc..
@DXSnakeEater NTFS would be better if you are using it as your main PC HDD. Because of the 4GB single file limit FAT32 has.. For USB HDD's that is where FAT32 comes in as best, most compatible for Devices etc...
I'm not sure where the myth that NTFS is less prone to fragmentation comes from, but that's simply not the case. Personally, I see NTFS fragments more quickly and worst than NTFS. Also, just google NTFS fragmentation and the first link will show that's not the case.
Fat32, by definition, uses a 32 bit File Allocation Table. It can handle 2TB drives and 2TB files (with 512 byte clusters. It's 8TB with 32K clusters), in theory, as that's 2^32 * 512. The limitations are in the OS and how FAT file structures are USED. Win OS's are limited to 137GB drives and 4GB files for FAT32. NTFS is capable of 16EB (that's Exabytes) for both volume and file size. That's 16 million TB. The more you know.
Genuinely shocked to see a valid and well backed up argument in a comment response.
I also believe there's more 'battle' to the story than simply comparing operating system load times. Adding to points above, NTFS holds several benefits such as it's ability to modify files, attaching parameters like encryption, hidden, read-only etc. However, FAT32 & Ext4 hold the forefront in file allocation, NTFS' poor file allocation system can really clutter your system up. DEFRAG!
@BrixXSM: Indeed. I wrote file systems for embedded projects and also used a file system written by J. Gordon Letwin for the old HDOS operating system. His used one table on disc for the directory (DIRECT.SYS), one for the sector chains (GRT.SYS) and one for sector status (GST.SYS). It was trivial to parse the GRT to find the beginning of the empty allocation chain and break off a section of it to make a new file. This primative seeming file system could grow to any size (1)
@BrixXSM: (2) could have it's directory anywhere on disk (as well as the GRT and GST) and have multiples of these. And all this was years before the PC. The real beauty was that a processor with 32KB of RAM could handle huge drives with huge directories and still have room for programs. Unlike FAT## based systems, you did not need to fo more than read one sector of the GRT to make effective use of it. Sure, it used more disk space, but drive sizes were no big deal to handle.
@BrixXSM: My point was, and is, that the limitations of most file systems are arbitrary and entirely OS and hardware based. As Bill Gates once quipped about 1MB of RAM being too small "Why would they need more?". Drives arbitrarily use 48 or 64 bit addresses for their sectors, SD cards do similar limitations for their data... all arbitrary and showing only a lack of forward thinking for imagined savings in a few transistors -- "They'll never need that much."
@RyuDarragh 16 Exabytes? LoL. No. See my post below. maximum ntfs file size is 16TB minus 64 kb. and the volume sisze is 16 TB minus 4 kb. But again, the real limitation is in the Master Boot Record. And is limited to 2 TB, unless you use a dynamic partition table. look it up..
Except we dont know if the 10GB hard drive is the same brand or not. It might be the difference.
svtcontour 1 month ago
LOL "why would i ever need to do that?"
I bet you've still got 640k
dwindeyer 1 month ago
That's not because of the file system.
It's other factors, like how the OS deals with the file system.
Also, seemingly identical devices are NOT that identical. The factors involved in their production can't really make perfect ones that work exactly the same.
MithranArkanere 2 months ago
i prefer android or mac, is very fast......
robertoshiotuki 2 months ago
@robertoshiotuki ... lol. android and mac are two very very different things
danielhlockard 2 months ago
HSFS? not HPFS?
91balint 2 months ago
NTFS was not created for speed it was created for Scalability.
HSFS is what you want for speed.
Unknownboi88 2 months ago 4
Defragment the drives...
QuatreFun 2 months ago
Try this with FAT16! Oh, wait... Windows XP won't fit on a 2GB partition...
munchluxe63 2 months ago
This is just a minor difference, but NTFS has many advantages over FAT
armorjan 2 months ago
@armorjan The minor difference is the reason why now I use Linux
jamtvbrhcp 2 months ago
@jamtvbrhcp
I really feel that Linux file system is more stable than Windows, I have both on my hard disk, but some programs have no substitutes for Linux.
armorjan 2 months ago
So this was from April '07, even at that time these machines were pathetically slow examples of laptop technology and obviously not brand new which throws a major wrench in the legitimacy of this example. The slight difference seen here could be a slight difference in hw performance or even file placement on each. Yes, it's known that NTFS had some performance overhead but those things that take that extra overhead can also be turned off. Terrible account name, that should be turned off as well.
rc01010101 2 months ago
Now configure the DACL on the FAT32 partition :D
joetioeb 2 months ago
10gb HD? LOL
gabrieldbz13 3 months ago
I preffer HTS, cuz Apple computers da best!
iOCTPOB 3 months ago
You shoud use average 2003 rigs for this test as this is 2003 system. RAM is ok but the cpu should be 1 GHz. At least! I don't like FAT-32 system simply because of 4 GB filesize limit. This makes downloading modern games from torrents pretty much impossible and you have to use annoying rapidshare-esque sites with parted files (and required premium accounts to be efficient with 50 Mb/s net :/)
alewis514 3 months ago
so what? fat32 is better than ntfs? you kidding me!
EstelNoquelle 3 months ago
NFTS is the technology slow in the world because that is problem the laptop is slow this is problem you need upgrade your NTFS to windows 7 only not xp the xp is so slow than win 7....
davidhcj86 3 months ago
Co to kurwa za odkrycie?! Do księgi rekordów haha:D I przy okazji - jebać holendrów, którzy nie wiedzą co to jest piękna Polska a na nią napieprzają!:P
MrBatonpc 3 months ago
why windows doesn't use ext4 like linux if is is a lot faster??...... o i remember ;)
trasmethrash 3 months ago
>NTFS
>Excellent features
You guys are mistaking FAT32 for Win98. Whenever you did something stupid on Win9x, CHKDSK will run on the next boot. XP stability + FAT32 wins. hard.
Oerg866 3 months ago
That´s my fat boy!!
TheAlfonsocc 3 months ago
Viva OSX!
cranie4 3 months ago
@cranie4 just no!
brigibrigdale 3 months ago
Wow that rocket.
ABeans07 3 months ago
@renatomaster9k openSUSE all the way!
GioGziro95 3 months ago
FAT = Fucking Asinine (waste of) Time
SeberHusky 3 months ago
I prefer EXT4!
NunoSequeiraAndre 3 months ago 110
@NunoSequeiraAndre peace of linugeek ! :P
DarkRedman31 2 months ago
@NunoSequeiraAndre that's Linux dude.
luigimario54321ful 1 month ago
@luigimario54321ful i think he knows that
nightdog007 1 month ago
Comment removed
NunoSequeiraAndre 3 months ago
Try save 4GB File on Fat32 ; good luck
coloraps1 3 months ago 124
@coloraps1
a single 4 GB file was unimaginable in the days of FAT!
SeberHusky 3 months ago
@SeberHusky
This True ;)
coloraps1 3 months ago
Comment removed
CTPATOKACTEP 2 months ago
@coloraps1 how often to you need to write files larger than 4 gb?
mgregggphone 2 months ago
@coloraps1 now there was no 4Gb file at 2007
idiotAREstupid 2 months ago
@coloraps1
Actually you can save 4GB file on it, so get your facts straight
pufixas 2 months ago
@pufixas Try save 4.01GB File on Fat32 ; good luck
DMSnaith 2 months ago
@DMSnaith
why would i ever need to do that?
pufixas 2 months ago
@pufixas Why would you ever want to save a file over 4GB? You said earlier actually you can save a 4GB file on it - 4GB is the MAXIMUM file size you can store on FAT32
DMSnaith 2 months ago
@DMSnaith because many movies etc are over 4gb.
danielhlockard 2 months ago
@DMSnaith 2gb is the maximum size on fat 32
Wabbit0789 1 month ago
@DMSnaith easy
noobehvc 2 months ago
Comment removed
coloraps1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even FAT32 thinks NTFS is the better filesystem! Why FAT32 is faster on booting? Because it's finished after 4GB.
sebastianruf 3 months ago
Even FAT32 thinks NTFS is the better filesystem! Why FAT32 is faster on booting? Because it's finished after 4GB.
sebastianruf 3 months ago
How about fragmentation? Did you defragmentated both hard drives before doing this test?
Snowwie88 3 months ago
All things aside NTFS wins in the end simply because max file size in FAT32 is 2GB. I have a lot of files that are bigger than 2GB... mostly blue ray rips etc. FAT32 can't read them or store them :(
I3loodTeeth 3 months ago
Its still 50% slower than my Linux machine ;)
Linuxdirk 3 months ago 3
starting up a computer is the BEST way to determine performance...
floofypoof 3 months ago
woop dee dee fat 32 blows by comparison
rancorx 3 months ago
JESUS! Look at the description people! It is THE same model... (meaning that the HDD is also the same...) I'd think that he created 2 fully empty partitions and installed them that way.... omg.. why do you always assume immediately that the uploader is stupid...?? It could be that you are, you know...!
terenas1986 3 months ago
Such a small difference is within the random variation between different hard drives; the test demonstrates nothing. Timing each one on the same laptop and running the videos side-by-side would be much more informative.
zack112358 4 months ago 2
49 seconds to start up the comp and end up on the desktop... AND YOU COMPLAIN ?!
Sven2Perroy 4 months ago
lol y u FAT32 tho?
HudsonAO8TQ1 4 months ago
Both are.... cheap, I wonder if in 2007 they were high performance.
XxAlelokkxX 4 months ago
@XxAlelokkxX What, seriously? You think that in 2007 a 450 MHz and 256 Mb RAM were cool? That CPU is the weakest Pentium 3 it's 1999... lol
morph1207 4 months ago
@XxAlelokkxX
You are WAAAAYYY off bro....those are pre-Y2K laptops. Late 90's.
SeberHusky 3 months ago
and both computers started
danielbarlund 4 months ago
LOL NTFS
asterion000 4 months ago
Normally boot time is a reasonable test of computer speed, but in case of FAT vs NTFS it may be wrong because system spends time checking disk integrity.
Anonymous595 4 months ago
Comment removed
MiHiVidz 4 months ago
FAT32 = uni.. easy for like USB's and other portable media. Very common
NTFS = More secure for PC, HDD.
Both are good, but i think for a laptop or desktop.. your better off with NTFS on the main HDD that the OS is installed on.
r4microds 4 months ago
@r4microds and fat32 doesn't even support files larger than 2gb. That would be a huge problem for me. (Think of ISO files, video editing, etc)
14wasp 4 months ago
@14wasp : ah, well that's a great point. :P I didnt think of that, but i guess it's useful for like a usb that holds simple word documents or w.e (either way, ive always used NTFS)
r4microds 4 months ago
@r4microds same here :P
14wasp 4 months ago
So your point is, something which is slightly faster but not that good, than something that is better, but slightly slower is the lesser choice. So you voted for George W. Bush, didn't you! You terrorist!
Ryuuken24 4 months ago
so we all know NTFS is more reliable for an O.S partition... but isn't it kinda funny how the FAT kid can run faster...?
ha.
heavysmokeband 4 months ago
Now do a defrag race.
ReiMomo 4 months ago
Faster does not mean better. And safer!
MrAussiebuck 4 months ago
Comment removed
MrAussiebuck 4 months ago
lopa- thats was v-funny thanks
he he
MrBarrytommy 4 months ago
I'm not FAT, I'm NTFS;)
lopataharykikiki 4 months ago
It's pretty good we have computers that are quick enough at using clever partition types such as NTFS where we have the security and reliability that at one time was reserved only to high-end servers and workstations.
judgewest2000 4 months ago
i am using ntfs and i am good with it
deniztunayalcin 4 months ago
NTFS is better, FAT32 is faster. 15 years later I choosed FAT32 without doubt, today FAT32 becomes too risky.
dmassive 4 months ago
boot speed doesnt mean anything on a computer
joc69uk32 5 months ago
i use hfs+
krazykap0 5 months ago
Viva Linux!
GioGziro95 5 months ago 30
@GioGziro95
Viva Windows 7!
We're going to hell with Windows 8!
DamageIncM 3 months ago
@DamageIncM Do you used Linux at least once?
GioGziro95 3 months ago
@GioGziro95
No, I never had to and I have nothing against Linux.
I have something against Windows 8 as opposed to Windows 7. :)
DamageIncM 3 months ago
@DamageIncM Windows 8 have better performance and security, than 7 (of course it's terrible, compare with Linux but it's better than Windows 7). Why you don't like? Because UI is much more different? Win 8 is optimized for tablets, it supports touch screen gestures, witch is more handy than standard Desktop UI.
I've installed Windows 8 DP on VM and it works better than 7. it's optimized to be faster and safer.
GioGziro95 3 months ago
@GioGziro95
I have little doubt there would be a Service Pack for W7 to optimize it too.
Also, yes, I don't like it for the new UI, that's the issue with many people.
How am I going to use it if I don't have a touchscreen?
Besides, I don't like touchscreens and I never want one, it's annoying and reminds me of kiddy toys.
Also, I've seen many complaints on how unhandy it is with a mouse, so I'm not a fan either.
DamageIncM 3 months ago
Comment removed
GioGziro95 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DamageIncM I understand your opinion, but Touchscreens are really very handy.
How are you going to use it if I don't you have a touchscreen?
You can use it with mouse, but it's very very uncomfortable :) MS strategy is exactly that! Buy new PC with little discount! And get comfort (They're saying that), this is commercialism! and one of the reasons why to use Linux!
GioGziro95 3 months ago
@GioGziro95
Hmhm, but nobody is just going to get a new PC like when they have a new once since 2010 or 2011, only to switch from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in 2012.
Maybe SOME people, but probably even less than usual when they want you to use a touchscreen.
We'll see who wins, the creator or the customer.
I think the customer because people don't like huge changes.
They could have learned that from XP and Vista, that Windows 7 works fine and doesn't need to be changed (much) in terms of use.
DamageIncM 3 months ago
@DamageIncM Microsoft will stop Windows 7 support. That's all.
GioGziro95 3 months ago
@GioGziro95 Yes, in 9 years...
DamageIncM 3 months ago
@DamageIncM Max in 5 years after releasing Win8, trust me. Now WinXP support is almost completely stopped. But many people (35.21%) still using it.
GioGziro95 3 months ago
@GioGziro95
Windows XP support runs until 2014.
For Win7 it would be 2015 and extended until 2020.
DamageIncM 3 months ago
@DamageIncM No, I mean Microsoft no longer sells WinXP and makes problems on It. For example dX10 or later, WMP12, IE9... Of course those things suck and there are many better Open Source alternatives (dirextX -> OpenGL, WMP -> VLC MP, IE -> Firefox, Chrome...), but M$ tries everything. They will continue this politic.
GioGziro95 3 months ago
@GioGziro95
Oh OK.
But won't the change from W7 to W8 be smaller?
I mean, I think the software-support will last for quite a while compared to XP.
XP might be older in software but it works, but W7 is still a more recent thing, XP was from 2001 and Vista came in like 2006/7 and Windows 7 2009 or so?
So, I think in comparison, Windows 7 would have longer to last.
It also depends if software-developers still keep in mind W7.
DamageIncM 3 months ago
@DamageIncM
I don't care about Microsuck's stupid commercial plants.
It's clear, that non-M$ developers will support XP, while it has users :D it's axiom. M$ can't compel them to stop supporting.
Windows Vista, 7, 8 all those versions are on almost same kernel, WinNT 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, and have same driver platform (If device works on Vista, it might work on 7 & 8. 2000, XP, 2003 kernel versions are 5.x and they have much different driver platform.
GioGziro95 3 months ago
@DamageIncM Therefore, software and hardware developers will support win 8, 7 & vista while NT6.x kernel will be actual.
...But Microsuckers will make some problems on them intentionally! Trust me.
GioGziro95 3 months ago
@GioGziro95 VLC is a Shit.. WMP FTW.
NamelessNLS 3 months ago
@NamelessNLS VLC is faster and more stable palyer than wmp, supports almost every formats, uses less resources and also has better quality graphics. It's Free and Open Source, cross platform media player. Supported OSs: GNU/Linux, Android, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, QNX, Syllable, Mac OS X, iOS, OS/2 and Microsuck Shitous. It's default UI isn't skinned, but you can turn on skinned interface, download pretty cool skins and have lot of fun!
GioGziro95 2 months ago
@GioGziro95 I Hate VLC... MPCHC has DXVA Video Accelerating for HD Videos...
NamelessNLS 2 months ago
@NamelessNLS LOL MPC and K-Lite are open-source projects of sourceforge too :P yes MPC has better DirectX support (It's developed 100% for Windows) than VLC, but VLC supports OpenGL fully, therefore it's the best on Linux desktop. If you install OpenGL on Windows, it'll be the best on it too (In all components)! OpenGL is much better than DirectX, but it's not supported by all games (but supporters has better performance and speed on it)...
GioGziro95 2 months ago
Comment removed
GioGziro95 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NamelessNLS WMP is shitty close player, slow and instable. It lacks formats, that's cause it needs additional codecs (Witch are Open Source projects too) to play many videos.
WMP SUCKS, WINDOWS SUCKS, ALL M$ PRODUCTS SUCK, M$ SUCKS!
OPEN SOURCE RULES!
GioGziro95 2 months ago
NTFS has a massive major security flaw, along with Windows.
One can set a locked NTFS volume up as a a second drive on a Windows machine and access everything, it is the boot drive that sets permissions.
And, I have configured drives with a small FAT16 partition (2047mb) in addition to everything else, as nearly every OS can read it, and put recovery files there.
With that done I can run anything, read and reconstruct, a live thumb drive and a few minutes and I am good.
Arabhacks 5 months ago
Raw filesystem FTW!
No, I'm joking.
Ext3/4 is much better than any NTFS, (ex)FAT or HFS.
piotralex5 5 months ago
obvious since NTFS has security ACL permissions where as FAT32 is as bare as it gets
hypercube33 6 months ago
@MrPaulrevere
EXT4 is know to cause corruption in large files ( Under 1GiB ? )
JFS all the way
739199 6 months ago
Seriously? You realize that FAT32 works better some people and NTFS works better for others for commercial applications. Apples and oranges. If you're debating about the file system of your home computer you might have OCD issues. I recommend going to your doctor and letting him/her know you're fucked in the head because you continue to argue about a file system of a hard drive on your computer.
denmar411 6 months ago
@denmar411 dude, he's just comparing the two's speed. FAT32 is better at keeping system performance and NTFS is better at keeping it stable. I literally just learned that. pick a fight with me if you think otherwise, this guy is just paying extra to show us something we couldn't find out without forking over a bit extra money.
Jackalakadingdong 6 months ago
@Jackalakadingdong The video was great - it's very informative. I'm just talking about the debate that going on here in the comment section.
denmar411 6 months ago
@denmar411 Gotcha. I agree.
Jackalakadingdong 6 months ago
Folder fragmentation status?
JoseJimeniz 6 months ago
Both still suck. EXT4 all the way.
But as far as a direct comparison, it's pretty obv. that FAT32 would win here. It's a less structured filesystem, but as others said - the drawbacks are huge. 4GB filesize limit, 2TB volume limit, and the fact that CHKDSK is be open all the time makes it not worth it.
MrPaulrevere 6 months ago
lol.....blast from the past
SANCTIONTRAP 6 months ago
LOL!! FAT32 more fast than ntfs... but 4Gb > are necessari :( fuck m$
vsilva007 7 months ago
FAT32 goes slower since it was from MS DOS.
And NTFS was from Windows NT.
NTFS means WindowsNT FileSystem
SonyFan1260 7 months ago
Uhh..I don't know much about NTFS or FAT32, but I know NTFS is more sophisticated!
WindowsLover6767 7 months ago
@WindowsLover6767 plus, NTFS lets you compress your hard drive to save space, unlike FAT32. Plus, FAT32's file size restriction is a 4GB File. NTFS = any size file: from 1KB to your hard drive space. However, FAT32 is only recognized by the Xbox 360, not NTFS... yet.
WinVistaUser2 6 months ago
Change title in: FAT32 vs. NTFS ;)
MrComputer1asd 7 months ago
Um... so FAT32 is slightly faster to boot windows than NTFS... Great. No way in hell would I put my OS partition on a FAT32 drive again and enter CHKDSK hell.
I'd much rather have 2 seconds slower boot up time and have all the excellent features of NTFS thanks!
OneThousand98 7 months ago 152
@OneThousand98 I have a nice 160 GB SATA drive that if you convert it to NTFS It corrupts the MBR. Soo, i have to run fat32. I HATE HOW WHEN IT SHUTs DOWN WroNG AND DOES A CHK DSK.
stormspotterbob 7 months ago
@stormspotterbob I feel bad for you man, 160gb is nothing these days. Get a new HD. A brand new 320gb is like $30 or so?
OneThousand98 7 months ago
@OneThousand98 I agree ntfs is best but Nobody tells you that you HAVE to use fat32.?..
he just shows a vs in boot time?.
madmartsi 3 months ago
@OneThousand98
Agreed and that's not including the annoying 3.99GB limit!
prankmypants 3 months ago
@OneThousand98 dam right CHKDSK = LAME
donohue100 3 months ago
Don't FAT32 have a max partition size of 4GB?
YoutuJ3eJ3lows 7 months ago
A 10mbit network cable connection is than a 10mbit encrypted wireless network connection, duo to the encrypt, and decrypt process on both sides.
Likewise fat32 is faster than ntfs, for the same reason as the above.
fat32 can be compared to a cabled network connection
ntfs can be compared to a wireless network connection
idsantos 8 months ago
Use ReiserFS.....or the author will come to your house...AND HE WILL CUT YOU!
slitor 8 months ago
Can someone give me tell me the differences between NTFS, FAT, FAT32, Ext2, Ext3, and Ext4 as if talking to a beginner?
theif519 8 months ago
@UgotMiniJacked
You need a history check-up man....... MaC brought every thin of the competition together and made something better. Only thin that mac "invented" but still Bill gates wrote it was the OS. Microsoft wrote the first Os for their machine. Only thin original thing i think @ the time apple Invented was the Ipod still a better version of the mp3/walkman/portable cd player. Iphone was the real original.
StandupH2o 8 months ago
@StandupH2o Apple brought popularity to MP3/MP4 players, tablets, Smart Phones, UNIX *Although it was well-known before in the tech world, it was ONLY known in the tech-world* and also they're the only company *That I know of* that makes their own hardware and software and make it so expensive. I am by no means an Apple Fan-Boy, in fact I dislike Steve Jobs and his cronies, but I do respect their existence, Apple has made tons of stuff. So has Microsoft, and so has UNIX/GNU/Linux
theif519 8 months ago
@theif519 Now they make their own stuff. but not then.
StandupH2o 8 months ago
@theif519 pretty sure most people don't have a clue what unix or linux is still.
Mgamerz 7 months ago
@UgotMiniJacked Apple did not introduce the mouse or GUI. Xerox did. The first version of the Lisa was pretty horrible until Apple basically copied many elements of the Xerox Star workstation. They refined that over the next few years and released the Macintosh.
As much as Apple would like to point fingers at MS, claiming MS steals ideas, Apple is just as guilty of it.
maramon795 8 months ago
@maramon795
aaaah....facts!...I Love them!.....Xerox Forever!
superspit 8 months ago
@UgotMiniJacked You're not comparing alike hardware here. Furthermore, the old Mac OS was far more primitive and lightweight than Mac OS X, Linux or Windows today.
johnny111666 8 months ago
@UgotMiniJacked And you are comparing with hardware that is at least 7+ years old? I'm almost certain macs that have 7+ year old hardware functions just the same. With the recent release of windows 7 the startup time is no longer an issue as it was before.
xm8563 9 months ago
EXT4!!!!!
faxmanloveswaffles 9 months ago 2
For all of those praising NTFS's features you are precisely missing my point: While ARCnet may have extra "features" that ensure stability, those "features" would slow the protocol down for all but system control purposes. The features in NTFS are NOT necessarily essential for normal client usage. For one thing 4kb clusters would mean an ENORMOUS FAT.
initvesa 9 months ago
3 seconds faster, but can't even store a DVD ISO file on FAT! So no, no FAT for me!
gideonz74b 9 months ago
FAT32 was based off a file system DOS inherited from CP/M. NTFS allows many, many more file-system level security features to be used. Considering the difference in boot time is minimal and has never been a good measure of overall performance, NTFS is a clear winner. Plus FAT32 couldn't handle modern hard drive sizes, while NTFS probably has another decade of life left in that regard. Either way the point's moot, Windows XP is obsolete.
panton41 9 months ago
@panton41 XP isn't necessarily obsolete until Microsoft stops support entirely. Something being obsolete is all relative on that note. Legacy equipment more or less can achieve the same thing. And since most people use their computers for dauntless tasks, computing power is wasted.
raymangold22 9 months ago
To add to what mikelunatiko said:
What were the exact conditions here? Were both systems booting off a fresh install? If not, then there are too many variables here and it's not really a fair comparison. However, I'm also with cruelmo on the idea that 3 seconds really doesn't mean a whole lot.
Cinj216 10 months ago
This test is not meaningful. I did a test with a friend comparing two Casio calculators, the same model, making the same long operation. My calc took 5 seconds more than my friend's. Mine was newer.
Have you tried the same test, using NTFS in left laptop and FAT in the right one?
mikelunatiko 10 months ago 4
NTFS is a far better filesystem than FAT32. A unclean shutdown requires a filesystem check on FAT32 or else all kinds of horrible things may happen. NTFS is way more robust but it does have it's flaws. Compared to FAT32 however there is not much point in not using NTFS at least not on modern CPU's. For fileservers I would rather pick a more robust filesystem and a unix like operating system. Most "standard" users would be better off with NTFS than anything else (FAT32 that is).
Slurfs 10 months ago 59
@Slurfs So, should i use ext3/ext4/ext5 filesystem?
GABOMAN742 10 months ago
@GABOMAN742 Use btrfs ;)
AJenbo 10 months ago
@GABOMAN742 You have to decide for yourself what is best for you. Ext3 have the advantage that is is very stable and that you have a good chance for recovery if anything should go wrong. For my own backups I use btrfs who is again backed up on a ext4 filesystem.
If you google around for the pros and cons for the various filesystem you will find out for yourself! Good luck!
Slurfs 10 months ago
@Slurfs Than Why My Computer Always System Check With NTFS
Farie977 5 months ago
@Farie977 Because you probably don't shut down properly and your filesystem is marked as 'dirty'. Thus forcing the filesystem to check it's state.
Slurfs 5 months ago
@Slurfs
Euhm the standerd filesystem of a Unix system is. Ext 3
sotiri2 5 months ago
@sotiri2 No it is not. The most common filesystem in use for Linux is Ext3 or Ext4.
Slurfs 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Slurfs
What? i just told you the same.
sotiri2 4 months ago
@Slurfs
FAT32 is a better option than NTFS on memory sticks, flash drives and in many cases external harddrives, as it's more compatible with different stuff. I had to format my external HD to FAT32 to be able to use it with my PS3, as it won't be recognized if formatted with NTFS for instance.
cakestalker 4 months ago
@cakestalker FAT32 has it uses yes. I would also like to point out that FAT32 is by itself not more compatible but more products support it. NTFS is a far better filesystem but I would stress that there are far better filesystems out there if you really need to trust your data. So for any important storage you would be better off with a raid setup and backups. For filesystems research is everything. Wikipedia is a good start ;)
Slurfs 4 months ago
@Slurfs Not more compatible, but more products support it??? LOL! I can come with some more. Ice is not cold, but it is frozen. Water is not liquid, but it flows.
PrinssiFO 4 months ago
@Slurfs try to learn english.
MindFlyer37 3 months ago
@MindFlyer37 woah this dude on the internet misplaced a couple apostrophes, better insult him
Gaiacarra 3 months ago
@Gaiacarra no, insulting people is rude.
MindFlyer37 3 months ago
@MindFlyer37 Would you please tell me what is wrong with my English so that I can improve?
Slurfs 3 months ago
@Slurfs Yes, a good starting point would be to try and learn the proper use of "its", "it's", and all the other pronouns (and adverbs) alike, such as "his", "he's", "your", "you're", "there", "their", "they're", etc..
MindFlyer37 3 months ago
@MindFlyer37 Ok thanks! I will do my best :)
Slurfs 3 months ago
Wow, when I format my PC, I'm going to set it to FAT32 then. Thanks for uploading this video!
DXSnakeEater 11 months ago
@DXSnakeEater as long as you don't mind any file not being able to be 4gb or over.
DarknessKingCoH 11 months ago
@DarknessKingCoH Well then that sucks. XD Then again I never had that problem with FAT32 a long time ago. So meh.
DXSnakeEater 11 months ago
Comment removed
MarstaJNZ 10 months ago
@DXSnakeEater NTFS would be better if you are using it as your main PC HDD. Because of the 4GB single file limit FAT32 has.. For USB HDD's that is where FAT32 comes in as best, most compatible for Devices etc...
MarstaJNZ 10 months ago
I dislike your profile name
the747videoer 11 months ago
I'm not sure where the myth that NTFS is less prone to fragmentation comes from, but that's simply not the case. Personally, I see NTFS fragments more quickly and worst than NTFS. Also, just google NTFS fragmentation and the first link will show that's not the case.
mannotwiththeplan 11 months ago
win fat32?? or ntfs? I believe that ntfs is more fast
eadomino2 11 months ago
Fat32, by definition, uses a 32 bit File Allocation Table. It can handle 2TB drives and 2TB files (with 512 byte clusters. It's 8TB with 32K clusters), in theory, as that's 2^32 * 512. The limitations are in the OS and how FAT file structures are USED. Win OS's are limited to 137GB drives and 4GB files for FAT32. NTFS is capable of 16EB (that's Exabytes) for both volume and file size. That's 16 million TB. The more you know.
RyuDarragh 11 months ago
@RyuDarragh Spot on.
Genuinely shocked to see a valid and well backed up argument in a comment response.
I also believe there's more 'battle' to the story than simply comparing operating system load times. Adding to points above, NTFS holds several benefits such as it's ability to modify files, attaching parameters like encryption, hidden, read-only etc. However, FAT32 & Ext4 hold the forefront in file allocation, NTFS' poor file allocation system can really clutter your system up. DEFRAG!
BrixXSM 11 months ago
@BrixXSM: Indeed. I wrote file systems for embedded projects and also used a file system written by J. Gordon Letwin for the old HDOS operating system. His used one table on disc for the directory (DIRECT.SYS), one for the sector chains (GRT.SYS) and one for sector status (GST.SYS). It was trivial to parse the GRT to find the beginning of the empty allocation chain and break off a section of it to make a new file. This primative seeming file system could grow to any size (1)
RyuDarragh 11 months ago
@BrixXSM: (2) could have it's directory anywhere on disk (as well as the GRT and GST) and have multiples of these. And all this was years before the PC. The real beauty was that a processor with 32KB of RAM could handle huge drives with huge directories and still have room for programs. Unlike FAT## based systems, you did not need to fo more than read one sector of the GRT to make effective use of it. Sure, it used more disk space, but drive sizes were no big deal to handle.
RyuDarragh 11 months ago
@BrixXSM: My point was, and is, that the limitations of most file systems are arbitrary and entirely OS and hardware based. As Bill Gates once quipped about 1MB of RAM being too small "Why would they need more?". Drives arbitrarily use 48 or 64 bit addresses for their sectors, SD cards do similar limitations for their data... all arbitrary and showing only a lack of forward thinking for imagined savings in a few transistors -- "They'll never need that much."
RyuDarragh 11 months ago
@RyuDarragh 16 Exabytes? LoL. No. See my post below. maximum ntfs file size is 16TB minus 64 kb. and the volume sisze is 16 TB minus 4 kb. But again, the real limitation is in the Master Boot Record. And is limited to 2 TB, unless you use a dynamic partition table. look it up..
prefix331 11 months ago
@prefix331: You're confusing the limitations of the operatin