Help - I want to convert to FAT32

[scourge]

I have upgraded from win 95 to win 98 using the win 98 upgrade cdrom. I have a WD 5.1 gig UDMA drive installed that Win 95 had split into a 3 partitions. 1.99gig, 1.99gig, and 1 gig or something like that. Anyway, I have Win 98 installed now, but the drive is still split into 3 partitions. Everything runs fine, but I read that FAT32 will significantly speed up load times and reduce total used hdd space. I have run the FAT32 wizard, but it asked which drive I wanted to convert c:,d:, or e:. I want to convert the whole drive. And if possible, make it one 5.1 gig drive under c:. Is it safe to convert c: then d: then e: or do I have to format and reinstall Win 98 and how do I do that if it's the upgrade version without installing win 95 first thus splitting the drive back up.

[MadMax]

You are asking for some headaches if you are going to attempt to merge partitions with only driveconverter. Do yourself a favor and buy Partition Magic. Even if you never use it again, it will pay for itself with this one job. What you want to do can be done with the imbedded tools in Win98 but it is an extreme hassle. I'll say it again, get Partition Magic. You'll be done 20 minutes after you start instead of hours later. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

BTW...FAT32 does NOT speed up disk operations. It actually slows them down. Unless you really pay attention to that sort of thing, you probably won't notice too much speed degradation. You will recover some disk space with FAT32 but not as much as you could if you only use one partition. Just some thoughts....

[This message has been edited by MadMax (edited 06-09-99).]

[WhoKnowsWho]

Slows down? Sped up my access when I changed my old 2.1gig harddrive from fat16 to fat32... Formatted in fat16 and installed Win95, ran unreal, timed it... then formatted in fat32, installed win95, and ran unreal, it loaded faster. Can you tell I used to have some free time to do this type of stuff?!

[philipg]

No offense MADMAX but I thought everyone knew that 32 bits was faster than 16bits.

[MadMax]

Tsk, tsk, people. You are not using your heads. Search the web for five minutes and you'll see that "everyone" does NOT think FAT32 is faster. I don't have the kb # handy but even Microsoft admits FAT32 is slower for disk intensive applications. More clusters=slower seek times. C'mon, guys, don't fall into the "It's gotta be better because it's new" trap.

Are you sure that you are using an even baseline? Format>Load OS>Load game>time game>record results. If you added ANY other steps to this process (such as loading another program or getting online) while you had FAT16 enabled, you skewed your comparison results.

As far as performance improvements from FAT32, you MAY see prog load times decrease, but that is where the improvement stops. After the app is open, performence is either the same or worse.

32 Bits is faster than 16bits? That sounds like buzzword talk to me.

www.flash.net/~hollowel/pro/fat32/#performance (http://www.flash.net/~hollowel/pro/fat32/#performance)



[This message has been edited by MadMax (edited 06-10-99).]

[WhoKnowsWho]

Wasn't an Ultra DMA drive anyways, old 2.1 gig. And it was still windows 95b that was running... though now I have Win98 SE and a 10.1 gig harddrive... so all of that is old stuff that I don't care about anymore.

[raihanan]

It's true. FAT32 is slightly slower than FAT16 since the cluster sizes are smaller causing more fragmentation. Reading a large file in FAT32 requires more random access on the drive. However, although slightly slower, I think the benefits of using FAT32 (e.g. the ability to have very large partitions) outweighs the slight decrease in speed.

Perhaps the difference in speed you noticed while loading a game was because your old OS did not make use of DMA and the new one did. I think early versions of Win95 (pre release B) do not set up the drive as DMA capable by default, whereas Win98 does.

[MadMax]

FAT32 does allow for more efficient/convenient total disk usage but the best feature, imo is stability. The mbr and FAT handling is much more robust. Less chance of total mbr corruption. It's just not faster. THAT is a myth.

[LJE2]

MadMax
I belive there are a couple different sizes when it comes to clusters in FAT 32, I have mine set to 4k (I think 2k and 8k are also an option) the old cluster size for FAT 16 I believe was 65k, logic will tell you that if a program resided in 25 clusters in FAT 16, and under FAT 32 it takes up 406 clusters, it is going to take longer to access 406 clusters as opposed to only 25, granted it's probably only a few ms, but it will take longer, but there is less wasted space, there is always a trade off.

[Zonker]

Another Issue with FAT32 is the size of the FAT, which is stored twicew on your system.

The maximum size for a FAT16 FAT is 128KB

The maximum size for a FAT32 FAT is 2MB

Every time you do a disk access, the OS has to read through the FAT to find the location of what you are seeking. The chances of the entire FAT32 allocation table being in your RAM, AND the FAT being defragmented are relatively slim.

So your hard drive has to go read the FAT off the disk and then go read the data. Two reads instead of one!

The odds of having an unfragmented 128K FAT16 allocation table, and having it cached entirely in your system RAM is much, much higher.

That's why FAT16 is faster.

FAT32 wastes less disk space on small files and lets you set up large partitions. Those are it's only advantages.

It is slower than FAT16... period

[This message has been edited by Zonker (edited 06-14-99).]

[MadMax]

from ms kb http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q154/9/97.ASP


Features
FAT32 provides the following enhancements over previous implementations of the FAT file system:

Supports drives up to 2 terabytes in size.

NOTE: Although FAT32 supports drives up to 2 terabytes in size, drives may not be larger than 7.8 GB due to limitations of the BIOS INT13 interface.


Uses space more efficiently.

FAT32 uses smaller clusters (that is, 4K clusters for drives up to 8 GB in size), resulting in 10 to 15 percent more efficient use of disk space relative to large FAT16 drives.


More robust.

FAT32 has the ability to relocate the root directory and use the backup copy of the FAT instead of the default copy. In addition, the boot record on FAT32 drives has been expanded to include a backup of critical data structures. This means that FAT32 drives are less susceptible to a single point of failure than existing FAT16 volumes.


More flexible.

The root directory on a FAT32 drive is now an ordinary cluster chain, so it can be located anywhere on the drive. For this reason, the previous limitations on the number of root directory entries no longer exist. In addition, FAT mirroring can be disabled, allowing a copy of the FAT other than the first one to be active. These features allow for dynamic resizing of FAT32 partitions. Note, however, that while the FAT32 design allows for this capability, it will not be implemented by Microsoft in the initial release.

Zonker~That's pretty narrow minded thinking, to say that there are only 2 advantages to FAT32.

[This message has been edited by MadMax (edited 06-14-99).]

[Zonker]

Yes... all those wonderful features that enhance reliability.

I believe that what many of those "features" do is hide faults to begin with

Are they really advantages you will ever use? I seriously doubt it. The only thing FAT32 does for me is big partitions and slower access. Or did I miss something?

[This message has been edited by Zonker (edited 06-15-99).]

[MadMax]

Yes, you missed something...stability and ease of recovery from corruption. You do "use" all of these features whether you like it or not because you can't turn them off. Cover up faults? What do you think upgrades and improvements in non-gui related software are for? If eliminate equals "cover up" then I'm all for it. Hdd reliability has improved dramatically since FAT32. If you haven't seen that, you haven't paid much attention.

[This message has been edited by MadMax (edited 06-15-99).]

[Zonker]

No

I don't use them. I choose not to. You see I don't use FAT32. I've never, repeat never, had a FAT16 partition become corrupt.

I usually run NT, so FAT32 is an option I can use with some third party software, but I don't. When building a Win9x System I generally make the choice depending on partition size.

What you have is a choice. FAT16 has speed and yes space advantages, especially on small partitions. FAT32 gives you more security,

Don't label me narrow minded. I have made informed decisions. I might have some adjectives to label your thought process as well.

But I choose not to participate in that level of discourse.


[This message has been edited by Zonker (edited 06-15-99).]

[MadMax]

I'm sorry, my friend. It is you that stated:

"FAT32 wastes less disk space on small files and lets you set up large partitions. Those are it's only advantages."

Indicating that FAT32 ONLY has two advantages. Which, BTW, is untrue.

You also stated:

"The only thing FAT32 does for me is big partitions and slower access. Or did I miss something?"

Implying that you DO use FAT32. Only later did you state that you don't use it.

If you don't wish to be labeled narrow minded then don't make statements that indicate you are. I was not talking about "thought process" here, I was commenting on YOUR statements.

"But I choose not to participate in that level of discourse"

What is this last statement supposed to be but a thinly disguised attempt at a slam at me? Nice try.

You made some fairly exclusive statements that are untrue. I simply pointed them out and gave you my OPINION of your conclusions.

Harry S. Truman said, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Consider yourself "all that", which you obviously do already, if you have never had a FAT16 partition croak out on you. You must be better at this than I am.

I am sorry to everyone that this conversation has degenerated in someone elses thread.



[This message has been edited by MadMax (edited 06-15-99).]

[scourge]

Um, I think we're starting to get a little off the subject here. I appreciate everyone's responses to my original post. I've pretty much decided to stick with the FAT16. From what I've read, I don't see any conclusive evidence that it would be in my best interest to go thru the hassle. Thanks again.

[Zonker]

Sorry about not having problems with FAT16 partitions.

The FACT is that Small FAT16 partitions are faster than FAT32 partitons.

I have not had problems with the corruption of FAT16 partitons.

Therefore, my experience and opinion is that those ARE FAT32's only advantages.

If you choose to point out experience and yes FACTs that dispute my experience, I respect that.

If you choose to disparage the character of someone who disagrees with your opinion, be it based in fact or experience, that is your choice.

I find it disturbingly immature.

[This message has been edited by Zonker (edited 06-15-99).]

[MadMax]

Another thinly disguised slam at me.

If you looked at this thread, you will see that I agree with your points about FAT32. Your points, however, are not the only advantages to this software.

My "opinion" about FAT32 has nothing to with this thread. The MS KB I posted states the FACTS about FAT32. My opinion was strictly related to your statements, which were wrong.

No, I did not speak to anyones character.
My comments were directed at your statements.
I did back up my position with facts. Look at my posts.

Just because you only find two advantages to something, that does not make them the only advantages.

I've participating in this BBS for quite some time and I have never had a problem with anyone else here. You, it would seem, are new. Therefore: I won't be talking to you any more, jerk.



[This message has been edited by MadMax (edited 06-15-99).]

[KillerBug]

What about the fact that my 500mb from my P75(sold it now) had 450mb free space after a full WIN98 install, and 5 large games?