Hi there,
I just bought a new computer without an OS on it the other day. I'm going to be putting Win XP Pro on the system and was wondering about my choice of file system. XP Pro gives me the choice of NTFS or FAT32. What are the pro's and con's for both systems? It's an 80 gig hard drive and someone said I should partition it, but i'm not sure about that either... if someone can shed some light on that as well I would really appreciate it! I'm feeling pretty dumb asking all these questions, but this will be the first system I build from the ground up and I would hate to screw it up! Thanks in advance
Chris
File System!
-
Dark Stalker
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 4:35 pm
- Contact:
Use NFTS - it is a newer and better implementation of a file system.
Also you can check this page http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/wind ... 52,00.html for some answers also.
(am to lazy to start listing them myself
)
Also you can check this page http://www.techtv.com/screensavers/wind ... 52,00.html for some answers also.
(am to lazy to start listing them myself
)Insert signature here.
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
Take our friend Xandax's advice; NTFS is by far more stable than FAT32 and makes better use of your HDDs space.
Like our friend Aegis, I also recommend that you use multiple partitions on your HDD. That will allow you to put all of your system files on one partition and all of your application/data files on another.
The advantage of this is that if your OS crashes and you have to start over, you don't have to worry about data recovery. So let's say you get a fatal Windows error (ie-"NTLDR is missing") and you have to reinstall. If you have everything on one partition, you're going to lose all of your data (pictures, term papers, saved games, porn, spreadsheets, etc.) because you're going to have to do a full format/reinstall.
If you have two partitions set up, one for your OS and one for your applications and data, if Windows crashes, you wipe out the OS partition (C , but since the computer thinks your application/data partition (D is a completely separate drive, your data will still be there. You'll still have to reinstall all of your pragrams to update Windows registry keys, but your data are still there. You only have to worry about those data if your drive fails physically.
I'd also check out Tech TV's message boards for some more advice (specifically the Call for Help and Screen Savers boards).
Like our friend Aegis, I also recommend that you use multiple partitions on your HDD. That will allow you to put all of your system files on one partition and all of your application/data files on another.
The advantage of this is that if your OS crashes and you have to start over, you don't have to worry about data recovery. So let's say you get a fatal Windows error (ie-"NTLDR is missing") and you have to reinstall. If you have everything on one partition, you're going to lose all of your data (pictures, term papers, saved games, porn, spreadsheets, etc.) because you're going to have to do a full format/reinstall.
If you have two partitions set up, one for your OS and one for your applications and data, if Windows crashes, you wipe out the OS partition (C
, but since the computer thinks your application/data partition (D is a completely separate drive, your data will still be there. You'll still have to reinstall all of your pragrams to update Windows registry keys, but your data are still there. You only have to worry about those data if your drive fails physically.I'd also check out Tech TV's message boards for some more advice (specifically the Call for Help and Screen Savers boards).
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
-
Dark Stalker
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 4:35 pm
- Contact:
Great... Thanks for the advice and the links. I will be setting it all up today or tommorow. I figure I'll go with 5-10gb partition for C:, and then 20 gb for subsequent letters! I'm starting to get impatient to get it up and running (upgrading from an 800mhz, 384 RAM unit, so I'm expecting to have my socks blown off by this one!)
It's one of the things I like about this board, it's generally full of friendly and knowledgeable people.
Thanks again!
It's one of the things I like about this board, it's generally full of friendly and knowledgeable people.
Thanks again!
-
HighLordDave
- Posts: 4062
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
- Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
- Contact:
I wouldn't worry about creating a lot of partitions (you will run out of letters, after all). I've got a 120 GB drive divided into one 20 GB OS partition and one 100 GB application/data partition.
The only time you really need a bunch of partitions is when you are running a multiple-boot machine.
The only time you really need a bunch of partitions is when you are running a multiple-boot machine.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
Well, it also depends on what you use your system for. I, for one, have tons of archived stuff (for instance, I have about 3 GBs of written work accumlated on my hard drive), not to mention music, games, and my artwork. For organizational purposes, have three or four partitions can be helpful, sorting wise. If it's a one purpose system, then you don't need the partitions as much.Originally posted by HighLordDave
I wouldn't worry about creating a lot of partitions (you will run out of letters, after all). I've got a 120 GB drive divided into one 20 GB OS partition and one 100 GB application/data partition.
The only time you really need a bunch of partitions is when you are running a multiple-boot machine.
Personally - I hate many partitions I like to keep a filestructur using directories instead.
(although - if I were to reinstally my harddrive, I'd make a boot/OS partition)
I find that directories and such a structure helps with knowing where files are and you don't risk running out of space on partitions and have to rearange the drives one have spend time on getting to know.
Thus I have 1 partition on my 80GB harddrive (would create 2 these days; a 10/70 split)
I like to keep a filestructur using directories instead.(although - if I were to reinstally my harddrive, I'd make a boot/OS partition)
I find that directories and such a structure helps with knowing where files are and you don't risk running out of space on partitions and have to rearange the drives one have spend time on getting to know.
Thus I have 1 partition on my 80GB harddrive
(would create 2 these days; a 10/70 split)Insert signature here.
-
Dark Stalker
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 4:35 pm
- Contact:
Hi again,
After some head against the wall banging, I finally got my new machine built and the OS installed! I decided to split my 80 gb drive into 4 partitions. A 5 gig partition for the OS and then 3 25 gig partitions for everything else! My primary reason for going with this many partitions was to avoid huge defragmenting times (I shudder when I think about how long it might take to defrag 75 gigs!)
I tried out a game for the first time last night and my hair is standing on end! I upgraded from an 800mhz with a 32 meg video card to this machine (amd 2600+, 512 RAM, Radeon 9600se)
Now, another question I have is moniter refresh rates(?) I noticed on the ATI control panel that I can adjust this. Mine is currently at 60 Hertz and can go up to 85. What are the benefits to screwing around with this and are there any dangers?
After some head against the wall banging, I finally got my new machine built and the OS installed! I decided to split my 80 gb drive into 4 partitions. A 5 gig partition for the OS and then 3 25 gig partitions for everything else! My primary reason for going with this many partitions was to avoid huge defragmenting times (I shudder when I think about how long it might take to defrag 75 gigs!)
I tried out a game for the first time last night and my hair is standing on end! I upgraded from an 800mhz with a 32 meg video card to this machine (amd 2600+, 512 RAM, Radeon 9600se)
Now, another question I have is moniter refresh rates(?) I noticed on the ATI control panel that I can adjust this. Mine is currently at 60 Hertz and can go up to 85. What are the benefits to screwing around with this and are there any dangers?
Benefits is a more calm picture on your screen wich for many can decreese eye irritation and headaces while working for a prolonged periode of time at the computer (or gaming )
Unfortunally - it can sometimes cause the screen to shift resolution with a rather nasty sound when playing games or starting and some screens can't run high frequencies (mostly old screens)
Recommendation: Test it out - and find a setting where you feel comfetable. I still run 60 Hz eventhough my gfx card can do much more and my screen can - but I rarely have problems like this.
If I had a newer monitor I'd run 80Hz wich is standard as I know it.
)Unfortunally - it can sometimes cause the screen to shift resolution with a rather nasty sound when playing games or starting and some screens can't run high frequencies (mostly old screens)
Recommendation: Test it out - and find a setting where you feel comfetable. I still run 60 Hz eventhough my gfx card can do much more and my screen can - but I rarely have problems like this.
If I had a newer monitor I'd run 80Hz wich is standard as I know it.
Insert signature here.