NTFS vs FAT

NTFS vs FAT

Criteria	NTFS5	NTFS	FAT32	FAT16	FAT12
Operting System	Windows 2000 Windows XP Windows 2003 Server	Windows NT Windows 2000 Windows XP Windows 2003 Server	DOS v7 and higher Windows 98 Windows ME Windows 2000 Windows XP	DOS All versions of Microsoft Windows	DOS All versions of Microsoft Windows
Limitations
Max Volume Size	2TB	2TB	32GB for all OS. 2TB for some OS	2GB for all OS. 4GB for some OS	16MB
Max Files on Volume	Nearly Unlimited	Nearly Unlimited	4194304	65536
Max File Size	Limit Only by Volume Size	Limit Only by Volume Size	4GB minus 2 Bytes	2GB (Limit Only by Volume Size)	16MB (Limit Only by Volume Size)
Max Clusters Number	Nearly Unlimited	Nearly Unlimited	4177918	65520	4080
Max File Name Length	Up to 255	Up to 255	Up to 255	Standard - 8.3 Extended - up to 255	Up to 254
File System Features
Unicode File Names	Unicode Character Set	Unicode Character Set	System Character Set	System Character Set	System Character Set
System Records Mirror	MFT Mirror File	MFT Mirror File	Second Copy of FAT	Second Copy of FAT	Second Copy of FAT
Boot Sector Location	First and Last Sectors	First and Last Sectors	First Sector and Copy in Sector #6	First Sector	First Sector
File Attributes	Standard and Custom	Standard and Custom	Standard Set	Standard Set	Standard Set
Alternate Streams	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Compression	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Encryption	Yes	No	No	No	No
Object Permissions	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Disk Quotas	Yes	No	No	No	No
Sparse Files	Yes	No	No	No	No
Reparse Points	Yes	No	No	No	No
Volume Mount Points	Yes	No	No	No	No
Overall Performance
Built-In Security	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Recoverability	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Performance	Low on small volumes High on Large	Low on small volumes High on Large	High on small volumes Low on large	Highest on small volumes Low on large	High
Disk Space Economy	Max	Max	Average	Minimal on large volumes	Max
Fault Tolerance	Max	Max	Minimal	Average	Average

Which File System to Choose?
As much as everyone would like for there to be a stock answer to the selection question, there isn't. Different situations and needs will play a large role in the decision of which file system to adopt. There isn't any argument that NTFS offers better security and reliability. Some also say that NTFS is more flexible, but that can get rather subjective depending on the situation and work habits, whereas NTFS superiority in security and reliability is seldom challenged. Listed below are some of the most common factors to consider when deciding between FAT32 and NTFS.

Security
FAT32 provides very little security. A user with access to a drive using FAT32 has access to the files on that drive.

NTFS allows the use of NTFS Permissions. It's much more difficult to implement, but folder and file access can be controlled individually, down to an an extreme degree if necessary. The down side of using NTFS Permissions is the chance for error and screwing up the system is greatly magnified.

Windows XP Professional supports file encryption.

Compatibility
NTFS volumes are not recognized by Windows 95/98/Me. This is only a concern when the system is set up for dual or multi-booting. FAT32 must be be used for any drives that must be accessed when the computer is booted from Windows 95/98 or Windows Me.

An additional note to the previous statement. Users on the network have access to shared folders no matter what disk format is being used or what version of Windows is installed.

FAT and FAT32 volumes can be converted to NTFS volumes. NTFS cannot be converted to FAT32 without reformatting.

Space Efficiency
NTFS supports disk quotas, allowing you to control the amount of disk usage on a per user basis.

NTFS supports file compression. FAT32 does not.

How a volume manages data is outside the scope of this article, but once you pass the 8GB partition size, NTFS handles space management much more efficiently than FAT32. Cluster sizes play an important part in how much disk space is wasted storing files. NTFS provides smaller cluster sizes and less disk space waste than FAT32.

In Windows XP, the maximum partition size that can be created using FAT32 is 32GB. This increases to 16TB (terabytes) using NTFS . There is a workaround for the 32GB limitation under FAT32, but it is a nuisance especially considering the size of drives currently being manufactured.

Reliability
FAT32 drives are much more susceptible to disk errors.

NTFS volumes have the ability to recover from errors more readily than similar FAT32 volumes.

Log files are created under NTFS which can be used for automatic file system repairs.

NTFS supports dynamic cluster remapping for bad sectors and prevent them from being used in the future.

The Final Choice
As the prior versions of Windows continue to age and are replaced in the home and workplace there will be no need for the older file systems. Hard drives aren't going to get smaller, networks are likely to get larger and more complex, and security is evolving almost daily as more and more users become connected. For all the innovations that Windows 95 brought to the desktop, it's now a virtual dinosaur. Windows 98 is fast on the way out and that leaves NT and Windows 2000, both well suited to NTFS. To wrap up, there may be compelling reasons why your current situation requires a file system other than NTFS or a combination of different systems for compatibility, but if at all possible go with NTFS. Even if you don't utilize its full scope of features, the stability and reliability it offers make it the hands down choice.