Aqua-Soft ForumsI know that OSX is supposed to be able to mount NTFS volumes but I put a XPNTFS drive on a OSX machine and it wouldnt see it. The only thing I can think of is its a difference in the NTFS in XP. Does anyone know how to format with a non-XP NTFS or how to format a large drive (60 Gig) with Fat32? Thanx.
Drive Formatting?
I didnt know fat32 had issues with larger drives...
Never, ever go with ntfs if you want speed. I have always used fat32, even on XP. It is alot fatser than ntfs.
Your not supposed to be able to format Fat32 drives larger than 32-some gigs. I swear it is possiable though. And not to be argumenitive (spellin?) but NTFS is faster. 
Its something with how much a sector or something is, or how big the data is thats assinged to your data. Cant remember how to explain. I just dont want to use it because of the security features. Its given me trouble before on simple ****. Reason why Im asking all this is because I got a 60gig laptop drive and a USB2 case to use as moble storage for my MP3s.
NTFS is do better, I have NTFS and it iis better than fat 32. Ig you have XP, you should go NTFS. You do can share NTFS drives and folders on OS X; but you need to have 10.2 at least, it wont mount on less than 10.2, unless you get a software called "DAVE". You need to share the drive on the windows machine, then go to the os x, and in the menu select Go, then connect to server, and then browse on the local network for the "shared folder" or drive, and accept, it will be mounted on the desktop. What OS X version do you have? I think there must be a way to OS X to read NTFS, if you dont have luck, tell me and i might help to find a solution.
good luck
With NTFS there is not lost clusters and that bs, but, Fat32 is faster than NTFS.
Your not supposed to be able to format Fat32 drives larger than 32-some gigs.
I had formated my 80 Gb with FAT32 and no problems. BTW, my "other" hhd (60 gb) still formated in FAT32
Now, I have formated in NTFS my 80 Gb drive becose the more stronger security polices. (IIS, certificates, ftp, encrytion, u understand, I need "security")
Por cierto, cómo es eso que eres un cabrón? 
Si, es verdad, ahora con Jaguar es que se puede "sharear" cosas con windows, antes sufrí tratando de hacerlo con el 10.1.5 y nunca pude. De hecho, traté de hacerlo hasta con una máquina virtual levantada con Basilisk y nada tampoco 
Por cierto, no estoy del todo de acuerdo con tu firma: si bien es cierto que Jaguar no es un OS como tal, creo que comercialmente hablando es más impactante decir OSX Jaguar que OSX 10.2, ¿no crees?, siempre estaba por comentarlo pero se me olvidaba 
well, I have a 60GB hard disc on my PC and I share it on my mac without any problems (I have 10.2.4)
Originally posted by Taha@Feb 15 2003, 01:29 PMwell, I have a 60GB hard disc on my PC and I share it on my mac without any problems (I have 10.2.4)
Precisly, u own 10.2.4
Previous versions sux at that kind of stuff
Originally posted by |2uso+Feb 15 2003, 01:34 PM-->QUOTE(|2uso @ Feb 15 2003, 01:34 PM)
Fat32 wastes slighly more clusters than NTFS, but FAT32 is on the order of 10-30% faster than NTFS,.. trust me on this,
"Back off man,.. I'm a scientist."
(anyone remember where that's from?)
Jaguar es un upgrade, por si no corre, asi que no es un Sistema Opertivo, como SP1, require de base el XP, de otro modo no corre, Jaguar se le denomina al Upgrade, en los requerimientos de programas de apple dice os x 10.2, no jaguar. Si hablas del upgrade probablemente es Jaguar, pero lo que odio es que se relacione el sistema operativo, OS X, como jaguar, y mas que sea un animal en wallpapers y eso, apple no lo usa asi y me parece extremadamente tonto.
To connect to OS X 10.1x or less, you need to use DAVE, other way it cant be possible.
Thats right Three Drives its cluster size,NTFS=4k and Fat32=8k I think thats it. but I thought of the cluster size NTFS was faster? Less data to sort though and all. Just to clear it up I stuck myXPNTFS drive on the IDE chain of a Mac. Not A share through a network. Thanx for all the info.
My understanding is that FAT32 is faster when the hardrive is small-medium size but not necessarilly at sizes greater than 25Gb.
The major reason to go with NTFS is that you can format well beyond the limit of FAT32 and that file corruption is less likely in NTFS. Also a single file can only be less than 1Gb-2Gb in FAT32 while under NTFS it can be as large as 1000Gb. This is not an issue in most cases but it is a major issue if you are dealing with video files where the size can be 20Gb per file. Recovery of corrupted files is also better in NTFS and that includes system files. Whenever possible NTFS is the way to go.
The problem is that if your C: drive is NTFS w/ the WindowsOS and you have another drive or partion D: as FAT32, the FAT32 will not be visible or accessible from the OS running under NTFS.
If your C: drive is FAT32 and your second drive D: is NTFS then you will see both FAT32 and NTFS drive.
So if your WindowsOS is in a NTFS then all the drives should be NTFS. I'm talking about internal drives that hook to the motherboard via IDE cable. A FAT32 external drive hooked by USB or Firewire may be visible, I don't know for sure but I expect no problems there. 
I would not be surprized if XP-NTFS is not the same as MacOS-NTFS. There are software packages that alows Mac formated drives to be recognized by WindowsOS and that may be the safest way to use those drives.
The security im not too worried about (I have a mirror of the drive) im just tring to clairify 2 things. 1. Is it possiable to format a 60 gig drive with Fat32 ?(I heard it wasnt but seems to be possiable) 2. Does OS10.2 or Win 2000 have any problem seeing XPNTFS (There is some difference, not sure what) when on a Win 2000/Mac IDE chain? I have had problems. Thanx all
Thanx VideoMann thats what I was lookin for. Looks like I will stay NTFS. I might format on a Win2000 machine though. My Win 2000 and Mac friends have had problems reading my XPNTFS drives when on a IDE chain. So I will use it on my USB2 drive as well. Thanx for all the info.
I don't have an answer for you. Except to say that if the drives are in a network then you should not have a problem. It may be that it has to do with the network software not being up-to-date.
The format is NTFS not XPNTFS. This format can be done and it is fully compatible with Windows 2000 and WindowsXP. There is no difference in compatibility or the way they format NTFS. The NTFS format is older than both Windows2000 & WindowsXP. It comes from WindowsNT mostly for running servers or computers connected in an NT network. I have no idea what Apple does with NTFS drives. You should check a MacOS X site on networking in a mixed environment. It is very unlikely that somebody that has a WindowsXP or Windows2000 would hook-up an NTFS drive formated by a Mac. The network software that you run on a Mac or Windows should be updated to handle these common formats. If you are not on a network and want to hook-up directly a drive you will probably need the latest software that will translate the format of a Macdrive to a Windows machine. Try Macdrive5 for Windows or other.
Win 2000 can read drives formatted by WinXP. It is my understanding that they are both NTFS 5. Correct me if I am wrong. And with MacOS, it uses two different possible files systems. MacFS and UnixFS (what kind of UNIX files system it is i don't know. i.e. RiserFS, ext2, ext1). I have had no problems with my disks being read by my OSX when they were formatted using NTFS 5, though.
I say"XP-NTFS" only because there is a suttle difference between it and some forms of NTFS. I thought it was differnt between XP and Win 2000 down to NT4 and so on. I will do some investigation and get back to the fourm. Thanx
juniperlater I believe that OSX can read NTFS drives (On an IDE chain) because Unix can. This is my understanding. This whole inquary came about because I have put my XP-NTFS formatted drives on OSX and Win2000 IDE chains (Slaved and all) and neither machines saw them so before I format my USB2 laptop drive im just trying to minimize any cross-platform hassle. Thanx All
This is the only thing I could find on the differnce between XP-NTFS and Win2000 NTFS. "NTFS improvements
A number of improvements have been made to NTFS that further enhance security, performance, and reliability. The default access control list (ACL) on NTFS volumes is stronger now to improve security. It’s now possible to use EFS to encrypt the client-side caching database. Also, the Windows XP Explorer uses the Read-only directory flag to increase performance when the directory contains metadata." Link- http://www.longshome.com/winxp_vs_win2000.htm I dont know if any of this is significant enough to mack a differnce though.
I remember benchmarking my drive over 20 times my conclusion was that fat32 is faster.
But ofcourse my drive is a 4200rpm 6.4gb laptop drive.
Ok for smaller drives it is faster.
<_<
Never, ever go with ntfs if you want speed. I have always used fat32, even on XP. It is alot fatser than ntfs.
This is rather odd... let's see:
1. Previous post was from year 2003.
2. Both FAT32 and NTFS are really really sloooooow, ReiserFS is 100 times faster, (but it comes for Linux only ). I've tested ReiserFS in a RAID 1 with 2 160 Gb SATA II hard drives, through windows file sharing (Samba Server running on Ubuntu Server 64) and it looked more like a ram disk than a hard drive. Really, really faaast.
Edit
Ok, fool of me, after taking a look at the other new posts, egisquire qualifies under the category of "bot" at least to me. Incredible what people can do to get ranking in Google results.