Re: [tlug] dualboot WinXP/Linux

[Charles Muller <acmuller@example.com>]

Jonathan wrote,

> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 07:20:13PM +0900, acmuller@example.com wrote:
> 
> >The only thing that I would point out is that if it is at all useful to
> >have write access to your Windows drive, you might want to take the time to
> >convert NTFS to FAT 32.
> 
> IIRC NTFS can't be converted back, at least not by anything that
> comes with Windows (that doesn't mean there may not be third-party
> utilities available; I haven't looked and don't terribly care about
> Windows filesystems :-) ), so with just the tools that come with Windows,
> this is a matter of backing up, reformatting the partition, then 
> restoring.  If it's your C: drive, it's a matter of resintalling
> and choosing FAT32 instead of NTFS.

Yes, I think this is right. There is, as far as I know, no conversion
utility that can safely do the format conversion and save the data.

>P.S.  Another way you can handle this is by keeping the NTFS
>partition, since NTFS is *a lot* better than FAT32, 

I don't know in what sense Jonathan means that NTFS is much better than FAT
32 (I'm sure there must be good reasons for this statement, probably based on facts
that are outside of my experience), but in my own experience, I have never
seen any sort of drop in performance when going from NTFS to FAT 32 (a
conversion that I make routinely with every computer I have gotten with NTFS
installed). Also, when trying to use third-party drive backup apps like
Ghost and Disk Image, the speed is excruciatingly slow on NTFS, with
frequent crashes.

I suspect Jonathan is referring to differences that appear at the server
level, as distinguished from a stand-alone work station?

Chuck

---------------------------
Charles Muller  <acmuller@example.com>
Faculty of Humanities,  Toyo Gakuen University
Digital Dictionary of Buddhism and CJKV-English Dictionary [http://www.acmuller.net]
H-Buddhism List Editor [http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~buddhism/]
Mobile Phone: 090-9310-1787