Solved 16Gb flash drive FAT32 or NTFS?

[gogreen]

I'm going to use two 16Gb USB flash drives strictly for backing up data files and storing the drives alternately every month offsite. I will need to use the flash drives mainly in my Windows 7 machine, but I might need to access them with a Windows XP laptop.

Should I format the flash drives FAT32 or NTFS?

Thanks.

 

[supernova777]

doesnt really matter, depends on the data u plan to put on the drive. why not use exFAT thats what exFAT is for i thought.

 

[unifex]

The decision largely depends on how are you planning to use the drive. Do you plan on using it with Windows machines and keep sensitive data? Then I would go with NTFS.

Do you plan to connect it to other machines (Macs, Linux, etc)? Do you plan to use it for media files? As an example, I use my 8GB USB drive to watch video files on my Blu-Ray player. It's much better than watching anything on the PC. But, the Blu-Ray player can only read FAT32 drives, so that was the decisive factor for me. The drawback is the 4GB file size limit of FAT32, if I have a larger video file, then I have to do something else.

So, as I said, the decision is yours and it depends on what do you want to do with the thing.

 

[Maguscreed]

The drawback is the 4GB file size limit of FAT32, if I have a larger video file, then I have to do something else.

That's been the only deciding factor for me in this choice. In the end I wound up formatting one ntfs and leaving one fat32

 

[gogreen]

Thanks, all. I will use the drives only for backup of all kinds of files and file types. But the drives will just sit in a safe deposit box as backup. No applications, no playing movies, just sitting there as backup (I'll store media files on the flash drives, but I won't be playing them from those drives). No Linux, no Mac--just Windows 7 and perhaps Windows XP computers (but mostly Windows 7).

 

[pparks1]

Don't see a reason to use FAT32 on the drive. If you are only using it with Windows XP through Windows 7, they read/write NTFS just fine and this gets you over the 4GB max file size limitation of FAT32.

 

[DeanP]

Thanks, all. I will use the drives only for backup of all kinds of files and file types. But the drives will just sit in a safe deposit box as backup. No applications, no playing movies, just sitting there as backup (I'll store media files on the flash drives, but I won't be playing them from those drives). No Linux, no Mac--just Windows 7 and perhaps Windows XP computers (but mostly Windows 7).

NTFS is likely your best option.

 

[thehappyman]

As the Folks above Suggest - NTFS

My opinion (and from what I've read) - NTFS, the newest of the file systems, is much more stable and reliable than Fat, Fat16, or Fat32 and is far less prone to file system errors. I realize you wont need NTFS's > 4 GB memory advantages but nevertheless - I think its your best bet.

 

[thefabe]

Simply put NTFS or whatever your system is formatted to. Why not keep then all using the same format?
Fabe

 

[James Colbert]

Although NTFS has its advantages, it also performs more writes to the media and is not generally recommended for flash drives. Given that flash drives 'wear out' after so many writes, I would go FAT 32 or exFAT, which overcomes the FAT32 4GB size limitation.

You can read about it here:

exFAT Versus FAT32 Versus NTFS | Microsoft Vista | Tech-Recipes


James

 

[mickey megabyte]

exFAT (aka FAT64) is nice, but can xp machines read it? or do they need extra software?

 

[DeanP]

exFAT (aka FAT64) is nice, but can xp machines read it? or do they need extra software?

Install this patch to add exFat support for XP.
Download details: Update for Windows XP (KB955704)

 

[mickey megabyte]

that's what i thought, you can't stick your exFAT stick into an xp box, and expect it to work.

shame.

ntfs looks the better option over exFAT then, and maybe over FAT32 too.

 

[gogreen]

exFAT (aka FAT64) is nice, but can xp machines read it? or do they need extra software?

Install this patch to add exFat support for XP.
Download details: Update for Windows XP (KB955704)

I tested this with my trusty (and old) 1GB flash drive on my Windows XP laptop. Apparently, XP already supports exFAT. Was this support part of a previous Windows XP update?

 

[James Colbert]

I tested this with my trusty (and old) 1GB flash drive on my Windows XP laptop. Apparently, XP already supports exFAT. Was this support part of a previous Windows XP update?

Yes. It's part of an XPSP2/3 update:

Description of the exFAT file system driver update package

James

 

[gogreen]

I tested this with my trusty (and old) 1GB flash drive on my Windows XP laptop. Apparently, XP already supports exFAT. Was this support part of a previous Windows XP update?

Yes. It's part of an XPSP2/3 update:

Description of the exFAT file system driver update package

James

Good deal, James. Thanks for this confirmation.

 

[Stratos]

exFAT is slow, that's my beef with using it and it doesn't appear to show any true advantage over using NTFS. You can't interface exFAT with any MS OS pre-XP or if XP machines aren't on SP2, or if Vista users aren't on at least SP1 so I would suggest NTFS. exFAT is in theory more efficient than NTFS but tests show otherwise, I have a 16GB eSATA flash drive and it takes extra minutes to move data to and from it in exFAT.

One of the inconsequential benefits is how it has the tendency of keeping data less fragmented because flash drives can access data anywhere on the flash memory regardless at the same time.

I use my flash drives to move data between 3 different platforms, Linux, OSX and Windows XP/Vista/7, NTFS will be the best choice in that scenario. A lot of OSX users out there don't use updated builds, only Snow Leopard with the latest release will read exFAT, those on Leopard and Tiger won't.

 

[James Colbert]

And, speaking of speed (regardless of format)...:

Newegg.com - Patriot Xporter XT Boost 8GB Flash Drive (USB 2.0 Portable) Model PEF8GUSB

Newegg.com - Patriot Xporter XT Boost 16GB Flash Drive (USB 2.0 Portable) Model PEF16GUSB

Reasonably priced and fast. The 8GB (of which I have a few) seems to garner better (and more numerous) user reviews than the 16 GB. The rubber casing seems to be a caveat for some, although no issue for me, and a 1.5' USB ext. cable addresses the complaints of adjacent USB sticks.

James

 

[gogreen]

exFAT is slow, that's my beef with using it and it doesn't appear to show any true advantage over using NTFS. You can't interface exFAT with any MS OS pre-XP or if XP machines aren't on SP2, or if Vista users aren't on at least SP1 so I would suggest NTFS. exFAT is in theory more efficient than NTFS but tests show otherwise, I have a 16GB eSATA flash drive and it takes extra minutes to move data to and from it in exFAT.

One of the inconsequential benefits is how it has the tendency of keeping data less fragmented because flash drives can access data anywhere on the flash memory regardless at the same time.

I use my flash drives to move data between 3 different platforms, Linux, OSX and Windows XP/Vista/7, NTFS will be the best choice in that scenario. A lot of OSX users out there don't use updated builds, only Snow Leopard with the latest release will read exFAT, those on Leopard and Tiger won't.

Very helpful. Thanks!

 

[gogreen]

I think NTFS wins...