FORMATIEREN?????

[Berni]

Das Wort Win kenn ich, XP sagt mir auch was, aber der Rest könnten genauso Kochrezepte sein, keine Ahnung . . . .

[DjUnderdog]

Also soll das heissen ntfs!!??
Nicht fat32???
Habs mit ntfs gemacht.

[DJ Rotterdam]

</font><blockquote>Zitat:</font><hr />Original erstellt von DjUnderdog:
Also soll das heissen ntfs!!??
Nicht fat32???
Habs mit ntfs gemacht. </font>[/quote]Passt doch eh
Für WIN NT, 2000, XP nimmt man immer NTFS!!!!
Win95, 98, ME FAT32
Verstanden? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Berni]

</font><blockquote>Zitat:</font><hr />Original erstellt von DJ Rotterdam:
</font><blockquote>Zitat:</font><hr />Original erstellt von DjUnderdog:
Also soll das heissen ntfs!!??
Nicht fat32???
Habs mit ntfs gemacht. </font>[/quote]Passt doch eh
Für WIN NT, 2000, XP nimmt man immer NTFS!!!!
Win95, 98, ME FAT32
Verstanden? [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/quote]NEIN !

Hauptsache die lustigen Lämpchen leuchten bei meinem PC und der Monitor zeigt was an [img]smile.gif[/img]

[DJ Rotterdam]

Börni unser PC-Spezialist

[NACHTSCHICHT AUSTRIA]

Blöd nur, wenn die Lämpchen leuchten, der bildschirm aber sachen anzeigt wie "fatal system error"
Spätestens dann weißt du, dass es nicht nur Kochrezepte sins!!
Mfg

[TPK]

unpackbar woher der rotti alle diese "figuren" herzaht ! *looooooooooool*

[gdu]

und auch wenns mir keiner glaubt, wenn man ein stabiles system will, nimmt man besser FAT32, ntfs kann mann ja eine partition einrichten für daten (wenn mann auf einige unglaublich komische programmierte MS dinge steht....)

[gdu]

ps: schaut mal in die rubrik "XP Problem" in der techtalkarea.....

[NACHTSCHICHT AUSTRIA]

Sorry @gdu aber das ist ein Blödsinn! jeder der sich ein bissi auskennt weiß dass ntfs um einiges besser ist als fat32. da mir aber vielleicht ned jeder glaubt zitiere ich einen Artikel: ein vergleich zwischen Fat32 und NTFS und der sagt ja wohl alles. Danke
</font><blockquote>Zitat:</font><hr /> There is no easy answer to this one! Undoubtedly unless you are dual-booting with another Operating System, or need to use DOS then NTFS is the only way to take full advantage of Windows XP's security and stability. If outright speed is your main requirement, then FAT32 is slightly faster on all but the largest drives: however both NTFS and FAT32 can be tweaked for speed by altering the Cluster size

FAT32
FAT32 is an enhanced version of the FAT file system that can be used on drives from 512 megabytes (MB) to 32 GB in size. FAT and FAT32 offer compatibility with operating systems other than Windows XP. If you're setting up a dual-boot configuration, you should probably use FAT or FAT32.

If you're dual booting Windows XP and another operating system, choose a file system based on the other operating system, using the following criteria:

Format the partition as FAT if the installation partition is smaller than 2 gigabytes (GB), or if you're dual booting Windows XP with MS-DOS®, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows NT.

Use FAT32 for use on partitions that are 2 GB or larger.

It's recommended that you use NTFS rather than FAT32 for partitions larger than 32 GB

For information on the limitations of FAT32 go Here

NTFS

The NTFS file system is the recommended file system for use with Windows XP. NTFS has all of the basic capabilities of FAT, and it provides the following advantages over the FAT and FAT 32 file systems:

1. Better file security.

2. Better disk compression.

3. Support for large hard disks, up to 2 terabytes (TB).(The maximum drive size for NTFS is much greater than that for FAT, and as drive size increases, performance with NTFS doesn't degrade as it does with FAT.)

If you're using a dual-boot configuration (using both Windows XP and another operating system on the same computer), you may not be able to gain access to files on NTFS partitions from the other operating system on your computer. For this reason, you should probably use FAT32 or FAT if you want a dual-boot configuration. . There are programmes available that will make NTFS partitions accessible under Windows 98/ME.

More general info...

Speed

NTFS and FAT32 are very similar in speed, but as the size of the disk increases, the gap widens. NTFS actually stores small files in the Master File Table (MFT), to increase performance. Rather than moving the heads to the beginning of the disk to read the MFT entry, and then to the middle or end of the disk to read the actual file, the heads simply move to the beginning of the disk, and read both at the same time. This can account for a considerable increase in speed when reading lots of small files.

Journaling

NTFS is a journaled file system, meaning that it keeps a journal of all changes made. If you lose power in the middle of writing some data, when the machine comes back up, it can roll back changes, according to its journal. This doesn't necessarily mean that you won't lose any data at all, but it means that if part of the MFT is corrupted, it can be fixed.

If the same thing were to happen to a FAT32 partition, and part of the FAT were corrupted, the partition would be unmountable (unreadable), and you would lose everything on the disk.

Security

FAT32 offers no security whatsoever, whereas NTFS offers very good security. All files and directories can be secured with a great degree of granularity. You can specify who can read, write, list, and change files, read/write permissions, read/write attributes (read-only, etc.), and a few others. The thing to keep in mind here is...all of this security is easily circumvent able with a Linux boot disk. Physical security is the most important security.

Compression

A commonly-used feature of NTFS is file compression. Many people have the idea that compression is bad, because of the way most compression is done. In Windows 98, for example, if you compressed a drive, it would take everything on that drive, and put it into one big file, using a special driver to make it look like all the files were still separate. This saved a lot of space, because there was no more cluster slack, but it also meant that if any part of the file got corrupted, all your data was gone. NTFS compression is far better. It compresses each file individually, and is extremely efficient. It's so efficient, in fact, that you will sometimes see better performance from a compressed NTFS volume than an uncompressed volume. This is due to the fact that more data can be read in a given amount of time, and because the OS is very efficient at decompressing it on the fly.

Disadvantages of NTFS

While NTFS is recommended for most Windows 2000 users, it is not appropriate in all circumstances. Disadvantages of NTFS include:

NTFS volumes are not accessible from MS-DOS, Windows 95, or Windows 98. The advanced features of the version of NTFS included with Windows 2000 are not available in Windows NT.
For very small volumes that contain mostly small files, the overhead of managing NTFS can cause a slight performance drop in comparison to FAT.
</font>[/quote]Danke für die Aufmerksamkeit und ich hoffe damit ist alles geklärt und ich hoffe jeder hier kann genug Englisch um des zu lesen!
Mfg