Windows XP and FAT 32

[jimmy_p_80]

i was under the impression that xp ran the nt kernel which meant that the drive the os is on would be converted to ntfs. however while trying to partition my hardrive with Partition Magic 7.0 i found out that the drive was still fat 32. preferences in my computer confirmed this. so i have 3 questions.

1. why is this

2. what should the partitions be (ie fat 32 or ntfs)

3. in general... is partitioning hard drives really worth it... because i cant just copy over my comp game's folders and expect everything to work right? i need to reinstall everything onto that drive. correct? no? maybe?

ok thanks in advance

-jimmy

[BobViper]

ALOHA
Answers~
1-Just like Win2k(THE Best Os!)Your Choice NTFS\Fat32

2-Mostly personel choice~
a-NTFS=Security,Compression,Bigger HD SUPPORT...
b-Fat32=No security,Some people think faster?!
Note~You can even Mix and match NTFS and Fat32!

3-"because i cant just copy over my comp game's folders and expect everything to work right?"??

What are you trying to Do?If you Upgraded to Xp what ever was there before should work now!
If you just transfer installed game folders to a system that the games haven't been installed(No registry settings)
they won't work unless they are self executing exe's and most Games-Programs aren't?!

Aloha

[jimmy_p_80]

you are right. everything that was there before the upgrade is still there. you see my friend swears that is computer is so much faster b/c he partitioned his hard drive. i always thought partioning was a waste of resources and not a gain. so will partitioning speed up my computer if i have a partion for program files...one for games...one for music....etc?

-jimmy

[Apemantus]

No.

In fact you may actually decrease your systems resources. There is no viable reason to partition your drive in this day and age unless you intentionally want some separation, like having backups & drivers on a seperate partition to your OS & programs.

In which case you may format the partition your OS is on, and still have access to your backups. Doing this may result in less "searching" time for the hard disk, as the total accesable space has been divided between two partitions creating two seperate, smaller volumes, which takes less time for the OS to locate the data it is after, assuming it knows which drive letter to search.

Otherwise, imagine try running one program from the first partition, and an MP3 recording session from files on the second partition. The drive is going to be put under enormous strain trying to do things with two different sets of data on the same drive. Not good.

If you want this option, and also wish to retain some performance, keep your main drive as one partition, and simply add another drive.

The performance overhead from working with two seperate drives at the same time is alot less, than trying to struggle with one drive alone.

Regards,

Ape.

[jimmy_p_80]

see thats exactly what i thought. i have 2 hdd but cant install a 3rd until i get another ide slot by getting a pci that has more ide slots....

-jimmy

[Apemantus]

There are obviously motherboards available that have an IDE RAID controller. Therefore if, sometime in the future you wish to replace the motherboard, you may wish to purchase one that includes an integral second IDE controller.

Even if you have no plans to make use of the RAID functionality itself, the extra IDE ports will give you greater scope for HDD upgrades should you want them.

In the meantime there are a number of PCI IDE controllers that can be added to the system to achieve the same purpose.

PCI based cards can also be booted from if the BIOS is set to boot from SCSI as most systems detect the add-in card as a SCSI type device.

These cards can be purchased for quite cheap amounts depending on the type of functionality you require. There are RAID and non-RAID versions available and there are several companies that do these types of card so the wide selection keeps the overall cost of each model down.

Regards,

Ape.

[Sweeper]

Currently running XP Home NTFS on Primary HD and my second drive XP PRO Fat32. Can't tell the difference in performance. Both run rather well. Neither are partitioned.

Sweeper