From: "Geo." 

There are only 2 things you will ever need to do to an NTFS partition. One
is run chkdsk /f /r once in a while to make sure everything is OK and fix
minor issues should you do hard powerdowns while it's writing to the disk.
The other thing is once the drive is more than say 75% full a defrag can
help keep it operating quickly. I found perfectdisk works well for
defragging but there is a built in defragger in W2K and up.

Geo.

"Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:4121d5da$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Maybe I'll go to NTFS then, but I really like being able to boot Win98 and
> then run speed disk or diskkeeper on the win2k partition which does a good
> job of defragging when running under win98.  I like being able to use all my
> utilities and ztreewin to do clean up and maintenance, etc on the win2k
> partition.  None of these things are that convenient with NTFS, but maybe
> they would be if I knew Linux.
>
> Anyway, just my thoughts.
>
> Gary
>
> "Antti Kurenniemi" 
wrote in message
> news:4121813b{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Last couple of years I've had a couple of file systems (or important files
> > in them) at work go bad, and without exception they were all FAT
> formatted.
> > We use DELL, and they for some reason supply the computers preformatted to
> > FAT, and sometimes they go past me to the users so quickly that I forget
> to
> > convert to NTFS. After converting, not one single problem (file system
> > related) with the NTFS computers. I wouldn't run FAT in my computers at
> all.
> >
> > So yes, it seems a lot better that way. Don't really know about security,
> > especially since there are so many Linuxen out there that can read NTFS
> just
> > like that - I don't know how well it can be locked down really, without
> > additional encryption software or some such.
> >
> >
> > Antti Kurenniemi
> >
> > "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> > news:41214aee$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > Certainly I agree.  Does the journaling really make that much of a
> > > difference on a non-raid single idea or scsi drive as
regards safety and
> > > non-file corruption compared to Fat32?
> > >
> > > Gary
> > >
> > > "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
> > > news:koi2i0tvv2ncpq9m7a694qsdjj5pgtrlvd{at}4ax.com...
> > > >
> > > > Tolerance of BSOD's is a feature for me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:17:54 -0400, "Robert Comer"
> > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >The biggest plus of NTFS is the journaling, and
what that means is it
> > > > >basically can take things like power outages and
BSOD's much better
> > > without
> > > > >corruption of files.
> > > > >
> > > > >- Bob Comer
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
> > > > >news:41208615$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > >> If you don't need NTFS for security, are there
other reasons why
> you
> > > would
> > > > >> prefer NTFS over FAT32?  I like being able to
do things with the
> > Win2K
> > > on
> > > > >> Fat32 partition that I can't so easily do if
it were NTFS.  What
> are
> > > your
> > > > >> thoughts on this?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Gary
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Ellen K"
 wrote in message
> > > > >> news:a09911.061078{at}harborwebs.com...
> > > > >>> So, that's a big deal.  Who uses FAT any
more anyway?  (Although
> > here
> > > > >>> it's
> > > > >> on
> > > > >>> the C drive of my desktop.  But I made
them format the second HDD
> > > NTFS.)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> > From: "Geo." 
> > > > >>> > "Ellen K."
 wrote in
> > > message
> > > > >>> >
news:sos4h0lciqhcjk25tgm2r02tuk07ihcqva{at}4ax.com...
> > > > >>> >> That is really impressive.
> > > > >>> > Only because nobody else has done it
on NTFS, heck on FAT it's a
> > > > >> standard
> > > > >>> > feature.
> > > > >>> > Geo.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5