The recent developments in drive speeds, buffer ssizes, cluster sizes and whatever are not the point. The point is the FAT32 file system is faster, and Microsoft do say so, here's an extract:

For small volumes, FAT16 or FAT32 usually provide faster access to files than NTFS because:

• The FAT structure is simpler.

• The FAT folder size is smaller for an equal number of files.

• FAT has no controls regulating whether a user can access a file or a folder; therefore, the system does not have to check permissions for an individual file or whether a specific user has access to the file or folder. This advantage is minimal because Windows 2000 still has to determine if the file is read-only, or whether the file is on a FAT or NTFS volume.

And it goes on, the URL is here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro....mspx?mfr=true

HTH

This only mentions 2000, not xp or 2003. And of course microsoft had to make vista ntfs only. Also determining if the file is read only & whether or not some else has the appropriate permissions to access a file/folder are 2 different things.

Originally Posted by HippyWarlock

The recent developments in drive speeds, buffer ssizes, cluster sizes and whatever are not the point.

Then you have missed the point as certainly drive speeds and buffers have huge impacts on overall disk performance. You cannot just dismiss facts because they don't fit into your equation! And I (along with MS, see your link) beg to differ with you about cluster sizes - they can, and often do affect performance significantly, depending on how they are setup, the size of the volume and the user's computing habits.

You started this post by declaring for small "files" FAT32 is faster. Your own link says otherwise. In fact, NTFS has a big speed advantage with small files as they can fit entirely in the MFT record - meaning the drive does not have to waste time by seeking out the file - (again, see your link). And from what I have found so far, small "volumes" is somewhere between 10 and 20Gb - typical 10 - 15 years ago, but not typical today and hardly practical when 500 - 750Gb drives are now the "sweet spot" in terms of bang (Gb) per dollar.

The point is the FAT32 file system is faster, and Microsoft do say so

But you conveniently left out the most important port - the clarifyer [my bold]:

For small volumes...

You also seemed to have overlooked where it said,

NTFS minimizes the number of disk accesses and time needed to find a file.

And your third point above clearly states, "This advantage is minimal..."

FAT32 has a maximum file size limit of 4Gb - so if you need to manage photos, videos, or zipped files larger than 4Gb, it would not be possible with FAT.

The bottom line is for some people with some PCs, FAT32 may be a little quicker for "some" tasks. But for the vast majority of people with relatively typical current computers performing typical computing tasks, NTFS provides the best "overall" performance. If your particular computing habits and tasks are better suited to FAT32, then by all means, use it. But understand that folks in that scenario are among a very small minority.

I find it interesting that Alienware, Falcon Northwest, Voodoo, Vigor and others - the folks that make ultimate $6,000 - $8,000+ gaming rigs, format all their drives with NTFS! Don't you think they would pick the best performing file system?

I do.