On 24 Oct 2006 12:07:53 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

>VWWall wrote:
>> Citizen Bob wrote:
>> > On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>
>> >> FAT32 has some strange issues
>
>> > What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
>
>> 4GB minus two bytes.
>
>FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation. NTFS
>is a much more secure and reliable fs as well as being more fully
>featured.

This is generally untrue.

UNLESS you set encryption or permissions, NTFS gains nothing
security wise. Maybe he would, but the security is not
better just because of NTFS.

As for reliability, not really. The vast majority of
problems with FAT32, would effect NTFS as well.


>Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
>they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.

If you have errors, fix the problem.


>50% of the time tis works... and 50% of the time you lose data. NTFS
>has 3 copies, so this problem doesnt happen. FAT has no password
>security system, ntfs does, so fat is 100% accessible to viri and any
>user.

Where does a virus tend to put itself? OS partition. Are
you seriously claiming everyone with NTFS on Winxp, has
never had a virus on their OS partition?


>
>Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
>a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
>booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.

I'm not suggesting FAT32 is better than NTFS, but
practically speaking everyone repeats the marketing blurb
you did, too, without really considering the application,
whether it'll matter.