From: "Gary Britt" 

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