Reformatting with windows 2000 pro

#1 Paul,

If you boot using the windows setup cd (nt, 2k, xp, or 2003), it should be able to create and format partitions for you - no need for an external tool.

#2 Sometimes with sata drives windows peaks out..
so you might not be able to use the standard method if this is the case (sata hardware)

and then if you dont have the required driver disk to load during install you wont be able to install at all.

however some sata is detected but still unable to format.

your Best bet? IMHO
is to grab up a linux iso and use linux fdisk to create your partitions as this works Everytime no matter which hardware combo you have. (Linux will have an appropriate kernel for you ready)

you can use linux to create partitions for I think all formats.

so use this one to create some nice fat32 partitions. NTFS is junk and slow. if your not a server I would say stick with fat32

#3 Thanks, I'll try your sugestions.

#4 Wtf, badguy does NOT know what he is talking about

his statement NTFS is junk and slow. if you are not a server i would say stick with fat32 instantly makes him loose any and all creditbility on the subject.

it is not the year 1995 people, FAT is junk and slow, FAT has a 32GB max partition size, a max file size of 4GB, slower IO performance, big cluster sizes, etc etc.

If you are working with linux, do whatever.. i have no idea about that OS. but if you are in windows, use NTFS.

it is rather stupid why Microsoft doesnt provide an NTFS DOS, but oh well, they make a lot of stupid decisions. James is right, boot to your Windows setup CD.

#5 Oh and another thing.. FAT32 only supports 8.3 file names, and there are some similar constraints around path sizes.

Also NTFS supports encryption, compression, auditing, and Security.

edit: fat32 supports 8.3 natively, though admitedly it emulated long-file-names fairly well

#6 Turning on encryption, compression and auditing is what slows down NTFS, though it would take specialized applications to notice it (memory paging is more likely to cause slowness than NTFS). As a base file system, it's quite nice. Turning on everything else will cause slowdown if you are dealing with huge files (say video) and massive swapping. For most applications, though, you won't notice those lost cycles. Definitely go with NTFS.

#7 I wasnt going to do that stuff anyway, windows xp and 2000 will only install with NTFS, and that sounded odd to me, And i havent used linux at all so that didnt seem necisary. I've backed up everything with dvd-r's so its about time to do the formatting. I remember last time i did this i had some trouble with it saying i couldent downgrade, since id installed a newer service pack than was on my install disk. Maybe that wont be a problem if i boot up with the disk

#8 NTFS file system is a POS and any asshat who says otherwise is a ms fanboy without a clue..

the time it takes to recurse directories with many files.
for example have a large directory set with many files.
compare that to fat32.

lol...
encryption and file attributes on a local system?
if it is not a server wtf?

ntfs is junk.

Im using fat32 on my winblows machine since ntfs takes forever to resolve all files in a folder.

a folder with many thousand files takes minutes to prepare a directory listing.
where as fat32 it is instant.
I dont need encryption and I am the only one on my machine .. I dont need file security either
(specially not ntfs)

I am not limited to a 32gig partition so someone dont have a clue.
I have a 80gig partition that I have filled many times without problems.

as for the 8.2 filename, to be honest I dont know if that limitation exists because I've not had a problem using long filenames.

for some more Real info on what MS has to say about fat32 read here before you beak off shit you dont know:

support.microsoft.com/kb/q154997/
so with service pack (wich is a prereq) this file system is much faster.

Edit:
Ok Im just ripped someone would come blast me without having any ammo..
grr..
Ok first of all Everything you said is Wrong..
maybe 5 yrs ago with fat16 or original fat32 this might All be correct.
however with new ms changes to the filesystem all of these complaints have been answered.

cluster size can be small files can be larger than 4 gig you can have a larger partition than 32g

and who the HELL needs encryption, auditing and security attributes on a local system?

if you need any of these slow ass features and your not server explain why here ok?

#9 Guys, let's please not let this become a flame war regarding personal choices in operating system/file systems. There are much better (and more polite) ways of making your opinions and experiences public!

#10 The guy wants help to reformat his computer, not some FAT32 vs NTFS crap.
Drop it already.

#11 Right on Stefan thanks for your valued input on the subject. as Stephen's comment must not have been enuff.

I did provide some assistance.
and an explanation regarding sata installs.
followed up by my experience with ntfs.

my response to Jason however.. was Required.

I dont need someone to come tell me what to say where.

I did my part for the thread creator.

not my fault some asshat without due information and research come and blasted me.

#12 >The guy wants help to reformat his computer
Then he should call microsoft for help - a company that can afford to answer these types of questions..
Same for this guy. Since when did GarageGames become a tier 1 help desk? A moderation system is needed.. -1 offtopic.

/Badguy is right
//Jason is wrong
///Fat32 isn't Fat
////Linux rocks..

#13 @Dear Badguy,

Stephen posted while I was typing my comment. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings mate, sorry. :p


@David,

For some reason Paul didn't call Microsoft, obviously. And it sure ain't up to you to you to define where it's okay to ask questions.


@Paul,

Did you get your problem solved? You *can* also reinstall and format Windows 2000 trough the installation program. I did this a few days ago and it shouldn't be a problem.

Edit:

Infact you don't even have to boot from the CD, you can just enter it from inside your existing Windows installation. The O/S will reboot, and then you will have a few choices to make, like what partion and size you want to format the HDD into. Then you're all set.

#14

Quote:
my response to Jason however.. was Required.

I dont need someone to come tell me what to say where.

I did my part for the thread creator.

not my fault some asshat without due information and research come and blasted me.

[Moderator Hat]
@Badguy: all due respect, but you obviously read my post, then continued to use terms (asshat specifically), and tone that is not appropriate for our forums. Please post in a professional manner in the future.

Thanks!
[/Moderator Hat]

#15 There's a patch for Windows XP that allows you to use WinFS, Microsofts next file system. Its a little more stable and leaves a lesser footprint that NTFS. It's somewhere on the MS site I think.

#16 To clarify a few points (and no, i'm not going to flame)

if you are a simple user (and that doesnt mean you are a simple person) then it doesnt matter if you use fat32, ntfs, etc... because you wont have any clue or any need for anything more robust than "i want to write/read this file over here"

So if you would consider yourself a simple user, stop reading now, and use whatever you have.

That being said, if you are running windows 2000 or above (and you should be running an NT based system if you are using windows) you must use ntfs for your system drive.

However, you could install fat32 on a non-system drive.

Though again, i would strongly, strongly advise you against this. I'm sorry to say, but if a linux "fan" tells you to run windows on fat32, and a microsoft "fan" tells you to run windows on NTFS... who should you probably listen to? (if everything else is the same of course).

So that being said, The reasons I outlined (security, reliability, etc) are all very important features for very important reasons. Again, if you are a simple user, then it doesnt matter.

I was wrong about fat32's partition size limitations, i appologie for that (i was thinking of fat16) i looked and fat32 has a 2tb limitation.. which is pretty much acceptable at this time :)

Though there are folder path and file naming limitations which i already mentioned (though again, ms did a good job of emulating LFN's)

if you care about the data on your harddrive, then that's another reason why you want to use ntfs. fat has it's root directory structure stored in a single table. if that table gets corrupted, you can kiss your data bye-bye. ntfs has multiple, redundant tables. also ntfs is transactionalized, so if there is a sudden power outage you wont end up with a corrupted mbr like you can with fat.

So badguy is right on some counts... i dont really know that much about FAT32 obviously.. but i do know that it does not support things i take for granted and do use.

#17 Actually, now that i think about it, this "fat vs ntfs" thing is kind of like a mysql vs mssql debate.

mysql is good for quick and dirty stuff
mssql (or oracle, etc) is good for security, reliability, etc

#18 The only real downside to and end-user for Fat32 is the 4 gig file size limitation.

#19 Btw, i just setup a new computer, and i couldnt format a 150gb partition with FAT, though i could with a 6gb partition. i didnt spend any more time testing things out however.

So it seems like there is a limitation of partition sizes with FAT (at least using microsoft's implementation, under XP setup)

Maybe this type of limitation doesnt exist under linux or something, which may be where me and badguy are having our disagreement.

#20 *cough* FAT and FAT32 are not the same :P