Linux and NTFS

Ryan Verner xfesty at
Thu Dec 12 17:42:20 CST 2002

Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:12:40 +1030 "Adam Smith"
<adam.smith at> wrote:

| > It really all depends on what you are using the machine for. 
| > This will lead you to a conclusion as to what your filesystem 
| > layout will be.
| True.  Typically NTFS is much slower than FAT32, and is usually only
| ever required in a corporate or insecure environment.  A normal home
| computer does not typically *need* NTFS.

Actually, XP/2K seem to run a *hell* of a lot faster (especially on slower
systems) on NTFS rather then FAT32.  I'm not sure if this is due to
faster diskwrites (I'd guess not), or the fact NTFS makes it easier to
manage/find files? I've just always noticed that using windows is a lot more

| Personally, I run a combination of Windows 98 [because my really old
| games like Commander Keen just DON'T run under Windows XP!], Windows XP
| and FreeBSD.  Windows 98 can't read NTFS, so I don't bother running it

Yah, I've always used FAT32 on my dual boot systems.  Only one of my drives
is NTFS, and this is because its my scratch drive for encoding videos (FAT32
has a 4gig file limit, afaik).

FAT32 is more then enough for most people, and if you're considering dual
booting into a non NT OS, its really the only safe choice.


- --
Ryan Verner <xfesty at>

ICQ: 76626240
 PH: +61 415 297 303
IRC: xfesty /
 EQ: Mummer (Bard), Tholuxe Paells

propaganda as education, no rising above your station.
a totalitarian state, all the victims that can hardly wait.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)


LinuxSA WWW: IRC: #linuxsa on
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
  mail linuxsa-request at with "unsubscribe" as the subject

More information about the linuxsa mailing list