NTFS Conversion

Factual Questions
1

Although it would obviously be best to set up NTFS in the beginning,
XP Help indicates one can convert from FAT32 to NTFS by entering a command

convert [volume] /fs:ntfs [/v] [/cvtarea:FileName] [/nosecurity] [/x]
(and entering the correct parameters)

Example
To convert the volume on drive E to NTFS and display all messages, type:
convert e: /fs:ntfs /v

My question is this: Has anyone converted an existing FAT drive with a lot of programs and data on it to NTFS? There is no doubt NTFS is superior, and I would like to convert without having to reprogram the hard drive. Are there any serious pitfalls to doing the conversion after-the-fact?

2

I have. The only critical problems you may encounter is with third-party disk maintenance/repair/recovery programs that aren’t compatible with an NTFS volume. Things like older versions of Norton Disk Doctor, for example. These programs often access the drive directly and not through the interface provided by the OS, so don’t run these unless you’re sure they can deal with NTFS. Everything else should work fine. I had no issues even with programs I’ve had installed since I had Win 95.

3

I’ve done it several times without any problems. And I highly recommend using NTFS over FAT. Although its all ‘behind the scenes’ there’s simply no comparison between the two. NTFS is much safer, more secure, efficient etc.

Be aware that once you convert a FAT32 volume to NTFS you cannot convert it back. You’d have to reinstall to get FAT32 again.

Also, your mileage may vary, but usually the conversion process doesn’t take that long. An hour or two, not days like Drivespace did!

4

Yes there might be one issue: cluster size. If you created the FAT32 partition with anything other than XP, you will need to either delete that partition and recreate it with NTFS or download a program called BootitNG and run the “Align for NTFS” utility. (BootitNG is shareware, but the boot disk you create will be fully-functional for 30 days).

Essentially, the problem is that FAT32 partitions created by versions of WIndows earlier than XP have a strange offset of 2kb. When you run the NTFS conversion process, this offset makes CONVERT.EXE use 512b clusters instead of 4kb clusters. This leads to rampant fragmentation and related degraded performance. If you’d like to read more about it, see this link:

http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.php

5

Sorry, I should have said “created by versions of Windows earlier than XP and any other disk utility such as Ghost, a Windows\DOS boot disk, Partition Magic (Partition Tragic) or the like”.

Sorry about that!

6

This is not necessarily true. While others have pointed out the advantages of NTFS, there are also some advantages to having FAT32 partitions. If the OS gets futzed, you can boot off of a simple standard boot floppy and access FAT32 partitions to get at certain files you may need, or possibly do some minor repair work. Also, if you dual boot, you can’t share information between some operating systems if the drive is NTFS.

7

Ummmm… Yes it is. NTFS is superior to FAT in every way. If you’re concerned about being able to get data off the drive, forget the boot disk - just install the Recovery Console.

Of course, I just use Ghost in those situations… It’s faster and guarantees that you won’t forget anything. As far as dual booting goes… who uses 9x anymore?? Linux has been able to read NTFS for ages - although I’ll admit that it’s ability to write to NTFS is a bit dodgy…

8

Every way, huh??

9

engineer_comp_geek has made a very valid and balanced observation and you have to answer with that rudeness? Nothing is superior to something else in every way and these things are very much a matter of opinion so please don’t act so superior.

>> who uses 9x anymore??

I do and millions of other people too. For me right now FAT32 is better and I know what’s better for me better than you do. I do not need you to tell me what is better for me thankyouverymuch.

>> Linux has been able to read NTFS for ages -

Microsoft is phasing out Windows in favor of Linux? I missed that news.

>> although I’ll admit that it’s ability to write to NTFS is a bit dodgy…

Sometimes FAT32 is better for the needs of some people.

10

Well, it **does[/]b take longer to pronounce.

11

It is my goal to make “FAT32” the next big thing in teenage slang for “cool”. Think about it, it combines the trendiness of “phat” with the time-proven feel of “23 skidoo”, all in one tidy phrase.

That’s so FAT32, man!

12

But NTFS is superior. Here’s why:

Compression - FAT32 drives cannot be compressed (DriveSpace only works on FAT16 drives). NTFS supports compression natively. And it works well.

Unlimited file size - In FAT32, the maximum file size is 4GB. In NTFS file size is unlimited, except on a per extension basis. For exmaple, AVI files cannot exceed 2GB, which actually is a concern if you’re working with digital video.

Natively accepts long filesnames - FAT32’s ability to use filesnames of up to 255 characters is a hack, and a bad one at that. Anyone that’s used Norton’s Disk Doctor to recover their MP3 files only to find out that “Sisters of Mercy - This Corrosion.mp3” is now SISTER~1 will agree. NTFS supports long filenames natively.

Support for larger disks - FAT32 only (theoretically) supports drives of up to 2TB and even then performance would be absolutely horrible. NTFS supports disks up to 16EB, far more than most datacenters would use much less the average user. The partition size limit of FAT32 is approximately 128GB - there isn’t one with NTFS

Cluster size - Once you pass 8GB, FAT32 must use 32k clusters, which is a horrible waste of space (“slack”). NTFS (if implemented as I showed above) will be only 4k. If you convert a FAT32 volume to NTFS, the cluster size goes down to 512b, which is even worse (although admittedly, this is a conversion problem and not inherently a FAT32 vs. NTFS one).

Security - FAT32 has horrid security. NTFS permits much more granular security, down to the file level if necessary. Also, EFS (Encrypted File System) works only with NTFS disks, not FAT32 ones.

Disk Quotas - NFTS supports disk usage allocation on a per user basis. FAT32 does not.

Unicode - NTFS natively supports Unicode. FAT32 does not.

volume mount points and junctions - NTFS supports volume mount points and Unix-style junctions. FAT32 does not.

NTFS is partially journaled - NTFS writes logs of all disk usage, FAT32 does not. This means that if you are moving a large file during a power or system failure, the file will still be there. It will not under FAT32, because FAT32 writes to the FAT at the beginning of the transfer. When you reboot, FAT32 is looking for the file to be on the target drive while NTFS is smart enough to know that it’s still on the source disk.

Future Compatibility - All things change during OS development, but Microsoft has never wavered from saying that Longhorn will not support creation of FAT32 volumes and that Longhorn will not install on a FAT32 volume (go ahead, try it… it won’t work). Although you will still be able to read FAT32 partitions, MS will no longer offer support for FAT32 failures on Longhorn.

Short list of links to prove the above (Google has hundreds of them if you want to look):

http://users.tpg.com.au/bzyhjr/ntfs.html
http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_fat32_file_system.htm
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cook/Cluster.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/en/server/help/default.asp?url=/windows2000/en/server/help/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.htm
http://www.thundercloud.net/information-avenue/ntfs-vs-fat32/
http://www.iceteks.com/articles.php?act=view&article=clusters&p=1&
http://www.musicxp.net/hardware_tips.htm
http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/info/ntfs.html
http://www.ntsecrets.com/info/file_systems.htm
http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/19.htm#filesys
http://rain.prohosting.com/~starman2/filesystem.shtml

Not my fault. If you plan on having an Intel processor faster than 3GHz (which I do), then you’ll need Win2k or higher, as 9x doesn’t support SMP. Of course with your thin-skin I can imagine you hunched over your P233, so yes, maybe that ISN’T a problem for you.

No, thank YOU for jumping into my thread and crapping all over it.

The only justification for using FAT32 these days is dual-booting. Win98 can easily read and write to NTFS partitions using a very well-known third-party tool. Linux has been able to read to NTFS for ages. That’s all I meant.

Yes, for keeping tech support folks like me in business! heh

13

One other possible downside to installing on FAT32 and converting is that FAT32 does not have red file permissions, so the converted volume may end up with all files irritable by everyone. I have not checked whether or not this is true, however – it just occurred to me.

Oh, this is your thread now…

I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but everyone knows about the countless ways in which NTFS is superior. What that does not, unfortunately for you, demonstrate, is your claim that NTFS is superior in every way.

As others have been pointing out, the ubiquity of support for FAT32 can be counted as one of its strengths. There is a good reason I don’t format my compactflash cards as NTFS.

14

Just goes to show you… always proofread what you write when using handwriting recognition. That should have read:

One other possible downside to installing on FAT32 and converting is that FAT32 does not have real file permissions, so the converted volume may end up with all files writable by everyone.
:smiley: