Posted 07 April 2006 - 11:55 PM
bobbob, on April 7th 2006, 01:37 PM, said:
1. FAT is simple and old. It doesn't handle permissions or >4GB files, and it corrupts easily.
2. NTFS is not quite as old and has permissions, journaling, a more fault-taulerant design, and isn't related to Unix at all. OS9 of course will have 'problems when file sharing' because it can't read NTFS. OSX can't write NTFS. NTFS is the better choice in all ways except for sharing data with OSX.
FAT(32) also is less efficient in disk usage (i.e. cluster size) and fragments easier than NTFS.
I don't know where anyone would get the idea it has anything to do with Unix though.
Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:
It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.
the Battle Cat said:
Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?
Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks
Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks
Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard
Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu
Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7