Difference with nfts and fat32???

[Sparkster-101]

Hey,

Just wondering would anyone here be able to tell me the difference between nfts and fat32?????????/

[Cinjection]

NFTS is more stable, and reliable then Fat32.

[Sparkster-101]

patheticcockroach is a pratt

[Inglor]

fat32 works better with linux and windows, ntfs is case sensative.

[XannyBarz]

FAT16 meens 16bits and FAT32 meens 32 bits

[thoughtpolice]

At 7/17/05 06:09 PM, iPhreak wrote: FAT16 meens 16bits and FAT32 meens 32 bits

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

[Ravens-Grin]

At 7/17/05 06:54 PM, Sinnernaut wrote:

At 7/17/05 06:09 PM, iPhreak wrote: FAT16 meens 16bits and FAT32 meens 32 bits

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

It means that FAT32 only has 32 bits that gives the cluster number of where the file is it, so which basically means that there is a 4GB (2*32) size limit. With FAT16, the file size limitation is even less. NTFS doesn't suffer from this size file limitation.

[thoughtpolice]

At 7/18/05 01:29 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote: stuff

... I know that dude, I know how memory and such works. You don't need to explain it to me (if I didn't know I WOULD have just already searched it up.)

What I was wondering is why the hell he came in with a comment that had absolutely nothing to do with the current situation. Nobody in this thread previously mentioned fat16. Nobody even previously talked about the size of the file systems i.e. bits (go on, do a search and he's the first to say "32-bits" or "16-bits.")

I didn't ask what the fuck 32 and 16 ment, I just wanted to know what the hell fat16 and bits had to really do with the situation.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 7/18/05 01:40 AM, Sinnernaut wrote: I didn't ask what the fuck 32 and 16 ment, I just wanted to know what the hell fat16 and bits had to really do with the situation.

FAT32 is a derivative from the FAT16 file system, with basically a partition table that takes up double the space. That's the only difference between the two partition formats. So I'd say that when mentioning FAT32 that it's also good to mention FAT16, because the limitations of FAT16 will eventually arise in FAT32 with hard drives on a constant rise of capacity.

I just have this simple question, when talking about computers why not go down to the nitty gritty bits? A simple bit can change a lot on a computer, change a flag in a program, change what interrupt is called, and what memory location is accessed. So it seems deemable that you should also talk about bits to truly understand what is occurring. Not only that, if you clearly define FAT as either 16 or 32 bits, then it shows that the partition format is not flexible at all. This can easily be seen in the waste that FAT16 had with large hard drives. Because FAT16 could only access 2^16 different pieces of information, with larger hard drives these little chunks of information had to get larger in order to accomodate with the larger space. Now if the chunks are about 64 Kb, this could potentially waste a lot of space. Look it up if you'd like.... I'll elaborate more if needed.

[thoughtpolice]

At 7/18/05 01:56 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote: more stuff

Nonononononono. You don't seem to get what I ment earlier, I probably should have made myself more clear, in retrospect.

If you will look through this topic, the question was, essentially already answered by patheticcockroach with his links. What I found odd was, that out of the blue, iPhreak came to decide that he would post something that was, essentially at the time of posting, irrelivent.
His post:
"FAT16 meens 16bits and FAT32 meens 32 bits"

Bad spelling aside, this basically had nothing to do with anything previously discussed, nobody asked what the 32 in "Fat32" ment or what it's predecessor was. He didn't even mention NTFS, which is half of the meaning of this topic. This post essentially has nothing to do with anything, other than basically, explain something that should be already obvious to at least a fair share of computer users.

I do not claim to be a genius on the subject of things like this, as I particularly am not that interested in things like file systems such as fat32 or NTFS, (as long as they work I am happy, I know some about it but frankly most stuff like this bores me to death), I was merely wondering, what the entire point of iPhreaks' flat out useless post was.

It is hard to explain what my post really ment with words, other than, I do know what you are talking about, yes, I do, no need to explain it to me any further, my post was questioning the entire point of iPhreak making his post in this topic. He essentially explained, nothing interesting or useful.

Do you get what I'm saying? I know about what you say, sure, I want to know exactly what the entire point of HIS post was. Nobody mentioned FAT16, nobody mentioned what the meaning of the 32 on the end of "FAT32" or the 16 on the end of "FAT16" ment. He posted the answer to an unstated question, basically, and I would like to know why.

[thoughtpolice]

I would like to take this time to annonce that the last five posts in this topic (excluding this one) effectively show why foreigners bitch about English bastardizing human speech.

[Sparkster-101]

right say tht again Sinnernaut so it makes sense

[Short-Shit]

At 7/17/05 03:56 PM, Sparkster_101 wrote: Hey,

Just wondering would anyone here be able to tell me the difference between nfts and fat32?????????/

Fat32 of fat16 basically stands for "file allocation table"
NTFS "new technologie file system" ...Acronymes aside Fat16 is used for the early versions of windows and Fat32 was used in the days of windows 95, 98 and ME and last but not least NTFS is used by windows NT(im not 100% sure about NT), 2000, and XP. NTFS stores information better and also organises it better by giving it personal attributes. all in all Fat12 and 32 flat out suck i don't recomend trying to use them while using nt/2000/xp cuz that makes the system unstable cuz those O/S' only support NTFS