It is rarely simple to choose the file system devoted to use on a Windows XP system. Besides, it's not just a one time decision frequently. Furthermore, different factors may blur the process of decision, and some trade-offs are more than likely. No matter what method you choose in order to adopt Windows XP, you would have to face the FAT32 versus NTFS decision. Both clean and upgrade installs require you to address the situation early on in the process. Later on, in case you add a drive or repartition an existing drive the decision process faces you yet again. Circumstances might dictate the choice for you, though in most cases the options have to be weighed and the trade-offs of using each method analyzed. Take a look at the available choices.

Choices of File System

Many articles which talk over file system choices look at FAT32 and NTFS like for the two accessible choices. In fact, three systems which have to be selected. FAT, FAT32, and NTFS. Granted, FAT32 and NTFS are the primary choices, though on occasion still you are going to find the necessity for a FAT volume. A FAT volume has a maximum size of 2GB and supports MS-DOS as well as to be used for some dual boot configurations. However, backward compatibility is about the only reason you might think of that FAT should have ever been used, other than for the occasional floppy diskette. That is to say, let's get on to FAT32 and NTFS.

Which File System you should Choose?

As much as everyone would like for there to be a stock answer to the selection question, there isn't. Different situations and needs will play a large role in the decision of which file system to adopt. There isn't any argument that NTFS offers better security and reliability. Some also say that NTFS is more flexible, but that can get rather subjective depending on the situation and work habits, whereas NTFS superiority in security and reliability is seldom challenged. Listed below are some of the most common factors to consider when deciding between FAT32 and NTFS.

• Security

FAT32 renders very little security. A user with access to a drive who is using FAT32 has access to the files on that drive.

NTFS permits the use of NTFS Permissions. It's much more difficult to implement, though folder and file access could be controlled individually, down to an an extreme degree if necessary. The down side of using NTFS Permissions is the chance for error and screwing up the system is greatly magnified.

Besides, the function of Windows XP Professional is to support file encryption.

• Compatibility

NTFS volumes cannot be recognized by Windows 95/98/Me. This is just a concern in case the system is set up for dual or multi-booting. FAT32 must be used for any drives that must be accessed if the computer is booted from Windows 95/98 or Windows Me.

An extra note to the previous statement. Users on the network have access to shared folders despite what disk format has been used or what version of Windows is installed.

FAT and FAT32 volumes may be converted to NTFS volumes. NTFS might not be converted to FAT32 without reformatting.

• Space Efficiency

NTFS supports disk quotas, allowing you to control the amount of disk usage on a per user basis.

NTFS supports file compression. FAT32 does not.

How a volume manages data is outside the scope of this article, but once you pass the 8GB partition size, NTFS handles space management much more efficiently than FAT32. Cluster sizes play an important part in how much disk space is wasted storing files. NTFS provides smaller cluster sizes and less disk space waste than FAT32.

In Windows XP, the maximum partition size that can be created using FAT32 is 32GB. This increases to 16TB (terabytes) using NTFS. There is a workaround for the 32GB limitation under FAT32, but it is a nuisance especially considering the size of drives currently being manufactured.

• Reliability

FAT32 drives are much more accessible to disk errors.

NTFS volumes could recover from errors more readily than similar FAT32 volumes.

Log files are created under NTFS which could be used for repairs of automatic file system.

NTFS supports dynamic cluster remapping for bad sectors and prevent them from going to be used in the future.

The Final Choice

Since the previous versions of Windows continue to age and are replaced in the home and workplace, there wouldn't be any neccessity for the older file systems. Hard drives won't get smaller, networks are likely going to get larger and more complex, and security is evolving almost daily as more and more users become connected. For all the innovations that Windows 95 brought to the desktop, it's now a virtual dinosaur. Windows 98 is fast on the way out and that leaves NT and Windows 2000, both well suited to NTFS. In order to wrap up, there can be compelling reasons why your current situation needs a file system other than NTFS or a combination of different systems for compatibility, but in case at all possible go with NTFS. Even if you don't utilize its full scope of features, the stability and reliability it offers make it the hands down choice.