Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Going from NTFS format BACK to FAT 32?




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    323

    Default

    I am wondering something. I was going to have a SATA hard drive I have, f disked and have the partition removed and have FAT 32 file system put on it. (It has NTFS on it now.) Can you do this? (Go from NTFS back to the FAT 32, if you take off the partition with f disk?) The reason I ask, is because the tech at best buy said that he didn't think it was possible from what he remembered in his training! The reason I want to do this, is becauseI have win xp on a regular WD hard drive (7,200 RPM) that has the FAT 32 file system and I want to use my other Western Digital Raptor hard drive (SATA 10,000 RPM 40 gig) as a slave! So is it possible to go from the NTFS file system backwards to the FAT 32 file system??? By the way, I LIKE the FAT 32 file system MUCH better than NTFS! It just seems to be so much more stable!!
    Here are my specs:
    System Specs: ATX generic case with Antec 550 watt power supply. ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Motherboard. Western Digital 7,200 RPM 40 gig IDE Hard Drive.(NTFS- file system) AMD Athlon XP 2600 processor.(standard fan and heatsink-Thoroughbred Core-standard speed-NO OVERCLOCK) 1 gig of Samsung DDRAM(PC 2700- 333 mhz....2-512mb sticks running in dual channel mode).Ati Radeon 8x 9600 XT (8x is enabled on motherboard). Soundblaster Audigy 2 sound card. Motorola sb 5100 cable modem (Insight Communications-Cable Connection) BenQ 16x DVD- RECORDER.(records -R/-RW or +R/+RW and CD-R formats) LG 52x32x52 CD Burner. Zip 100 internal drive and a generic 3.5 floppy drive. Windows XP Professional Operating System. I also have a HP Deskjet 3520 inkjet printer and a KDS X Flat 17 inch CRT monitor.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    fdisk will certainly fix that for ya.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    323

    Default

    So you CAN get it back to FAT 32 then?? That is GREAT NEWS! Thanks Wiggo!
    Here are my specs:
    System Specs: ATX generic case with Antec 550 watt power supply. ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Motherboard. Western Digital 7,200 RPM 40 gig IDE Hard Drive.(NTFS- file system) AMD Athlon XP 2600 processor.(standard fan and heatsink-Thoroughbred Core-standard speed-NO OVERCLOCK) 1 gig of Samsung DDRAM(PC 2700- 333 mhz....2-512mb sticks running in dual channel mode).Ati Radeon 8x 9600 XT (8x is enabled on motherboard). Soundblaster Audigy 2 sound card. Motorola sb 5100 cable modem (Insight Communications-Cable Connection) BenQ 16x DVD- RECORDER.(records -R/-RW or +R/+RW and CD-R formats) LG 52x32x52 CD Burner. Zip 100 internal drive and a generic 3.5 floppy drive. Windows XP Professional Operating System. I also have a HP Deskjet 3520 inkjet printer and a KDS X Flat 17 inch CRT monitor.

  4. #4
    Beefy Guest

    Default

    You can get it back, but you lose all your data in the process.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Very true... but if you're using fdisk from a boot disk, then you won't be able to see the partition. Once you run fdisk, though, you CAN remove the partition with the utility and then create a new one and format it with FAT32 file system.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    Without getting into another big discussion on FAT32 vs. NTFS, I'll just give you a link to one of the more credible comparisons I have found yet. Just skip to page 15 for the summary.
    http://people.msoe.edu/~barnicks/cou...rm%20Paper.pdf
    In any case, if it's stability your after, FAT32 certainly isn't more stable, read page 14 for proof.

    To actually further the answers to your question though, you aren't "going back" to FAT32. Your hard drive doesn't care what file systems have been on it in the past, and neither should you. You just reformat the drive and it works fine.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yawgm0th
    Without getting into another big discussion on FAT32 vs. NTFS, I'll just give you a link to one of the more credible comparisons I have found yet. Just skip to page 15 for the summary.
    http://people.msoe.edu/~barnicks/cou...rm%20Paper.pdf
    In any case, if it's stability your after, FAT32 certainly isn't more stable, read page 14 for proof.

    To actually further the answers to your question though, you aren't "going back" to FAT32. Your hard drive doesn't care what file systems have been on it in the past, and neither should you. You just reformat the drive and it works fine.

    Sorry, dude! Your not about to convince me that NTFS is a better file system! For what I use it for, FAT 32 serves me MUCH better than NTFS ever has! And all I meant by going back was that it was like going back to ME....not the drive!
    Here are my specs:
    System Specs: ATX generic case with Antec 550 watt power supply. ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Motherboard. Western Digital 7,200 RPM 40 gig IDE Hard Drive.(NTFS- file system) AMD Athlon XP 2600 processor.(standard fan and heatsink-Thoroughbred Core-standard speed-NO OVERCLOCK) 1 gig of Samsung DDRAM(PC 2700- 333 mhz....2-512mb sticks running in dual channel mode).Ati Radeon 8x 9600 XT (8x is enabled on motherboard). Soundblaster Audigy 2 sound card. Motorola sb 5100 cable modem (Insight Communications-Cable Connection) BenQ 16x DVD- RECORDER.(records -R/-RW or +R/+RW and CD-R formats) LG 52x32x52 CD Burner. Zip 100 internal drive and a generic 3.5 floppy drive. Windows XP Professional Operating System. I also have a HP Deskjet 3520 inkjet printer and a KDS X Flat 17 inch CRT monitor.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    For what I use it for, FAT 32 serves me MUCH better than NTFS ever has
    I didn't know you could have dozens of 200MB partitions.... Something new in Sata?:confused:
    FAT32 has it's uses though. One use might be putting your pagefile on a single 200MB partition, I guess, but you would need a lot of RAM. It depends on what your doing in terms of speed, but NTFS is better in any case in terms of efficient disk usage. For partitions over 400MB it has much disk usage. Not to mention file compression. Here's my Windows folder with files that haven't been accessed in 50+ days compressed:

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default

    Damn, I'm slow.
    If he's using 98 and not NT\2000\XP then this whole conversation is irrelevant anyway.

    Ooh, the edit button comes out....
    Better, watch it. No reason to get mad like that at anyone, especially not moderators.:)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yawgm0th
    No reason to get mad like that at anyone, especially not moderators.:)
    he's just lucky I'm in a forgiving mood tonight. irrelevant posts removed. :smokin:

    webe3, if you feel like making any more out busts, I'd suggest you at least watch the language.
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •