Re: Converting NTFS back to FAT32 On an External Drive



In article <43819362$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, wf1000xg@xxxxxxxxxxx
says...
> buck wrote:
>
> Why on earth would you prefer fat32 over ntfs....... each one to there
> own I guess.......

Why on Earth? You need to communicate more with experienced users.
FAT-32 is NOT obsolete by any stretch of the imagination. For one
thing, there are myriad techies and gurus out here still conversant
with superior DOS operating systems. NTFS was designed for better
filing architecture, granted, but it is molasses slower than FAT32
and few persons have any need to design files larger than 4 Gig. In
any case, it is always better to have several smaller segments than
one large file, as a hedge against losing ALL of your data rather
than just SOME of your data.

DOS cannot do any work on an NTFS formatted medium.

It's a myth that XP cannot use FAT32 on drives larger than 32GB. I
can't fathom where that myth came from. I maintain all my 250GB
drives as FAT32, whether unpartitioned or partitioned into 80+GB
thirds. I'm close to running out of alphabet for drive letters.

In FAT32, I triple-boot into a choice of XP, 98se, and old
Win 3.11 with 32s piled on it .. all in FAT32. I can even boot
from a Win311 floppy set and deal with all my files on FAT32
hard drives. By the way .. if interested .. Win 3.11 is
greased lightning online broadband compared to ANYTHING else.

Finally, although DOS-based GHOST and TERABYTE IMAGE produce
images in NTFS (as well as FAT32) and burns them directly to DVD for
near-instant rebuilding, I have had the most trouble with NTFS
imaging (losing data in the paint-back), but none in FAT32.

I guess speed is my most-appreciated advantage, and working in
DOS a close second. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, which
Windows does that cannot be done in DOS, but much that Windows
cannot do which can be done in DOS.
.