ExFat, Fat32, and NTFS


  1. Posts : 1,360
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
       #1

    ExFat, Fat32, and NTFS


    So I'm wondering a bit about the differences, pros and cons, between each of these formats and which is best for my Win7 install.

    I'm currently installed on NTFS.
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 11,840
    64-bit Windows 8.1 Pro
       #2

    Stick with what you have.. as long as MS keeps NTSF alive, it wont really matter. Id like to see them switch over to EXT but that's not likely to happen..
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 2,528
    Windows 7 x64 Ultimate
       #3

    NTFS is the only choice really.

    FAT32 is massively innefficent in both disk usage on todays large disks and expecially with large nubers of files. Severe limitations on number of files and a huge performance pentalty as the number of files in a folder grows. It also lacks almost every single file system feature there is

    ExFAT is merely FAT32 with some efficnency fixes and an optional transactioning system (like NTFS) to prevent corruption when used in embedded systems. It really is only meant for non user servicable storage drives in embedded systems. THough as more and more people build it into more systems, card readers, etc it may become a compelte replacement for fat, but I still wouldn't use it on a desktop system. Meant for CF cards and other small scale systems.
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 1,360
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
    Thread Starter
       #4

    Is there any other format available today, or forth coming that would be better than and replace NTFS?
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 1
    Windows 7 VLK
       #5

    exFAT has two advantages, when used on large flash USB drives: first, it doesn't have so much read/write operations like NTFS, it is very simlar to FAT32, but: it can have files larger than 4 GB.
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 2,528
    Windows 7 x64 Ultimate
       #6

    Zen00 said:
    Is there any other format available today, or forth coming that would be better than and replace NTFS?
    Well there is "WinFS" which is forever mired in development. But part of the problem there is, though it will ad loads of features, it also ups the complexity, potential "attack" surface and will almost necessarily be slower.

    I haven't been keeping up on it lately but searching MS's site for "WinFS" should bring up a lot of reference.

    Tough here is a mini wrapup:
    WinFS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 5,642
    Windows 10 Pro (x64)
       #7

    fseal said:
    Well there is "WinFS" which is forever mired in development. But part of the problem there is, though it will ad loads of features, it also ups the complexity, potential "attack" surface and will almost necessarily be slower.
    WinFS was/is not a file system, it sat in between NTFS and the applications. It was not a replacement for NTFS. All it really did was act as a database for 'extra' metadata. But while it looked cool it never had much practical use. So instead it was turned into an individual application feature instead of a global OS feature.

    There is nothing wrong with NTFS to warrant anything better. So just use it.
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 9
    XP
       #8

    I heard that WinFS was going to be a new file system in Windows 7. It is an "object oriented" file system. This never materialized. I hear that WinFS was finally used in SQL Server 2008 for the database.
      My Computer


  9. Posts : 5,642
    Windows 10 Pro (x64)
       #9

    overcertified said:
    I heard that WinFS was going to be a new file system in Windows 7. It is an "object oriented" file system. This never materialized. I hear that WinFS was finally used in SQL Server 2008 for the database.
    WinFS was developed during Windows Vista and it was not a new file system. It was a database that sat between the file system and supporting applications.
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 9
    XP
       #10

    fseal said:
    NTFS is the only choice really.

    ExFAT is merely FAT32 with some efficnency fixes and an optional transactioning system (like NTFS) to prevent corruption when used in embedded systems. It really is only meant for non user servicable storage drives in embedded systems. THough as more and more people build it into more systems, card readers, etc it may become a compelte replacement for fat, but I still wouldn't use it on a desktop system. Meant for CF cards and other small scale systems.
    exFAT is still much different, although it has efficiency changes in design, it looks nothing like a FAT12/16/32 file system. The only similarity is that it has a File Allocation table - which is only used if the file is fragmented. It uses a bitmap for storage allocation, like NTFS, but unlike any of the previous FAT organizations, it removes the 4GB file barrier, supports file systems up to almost 128PiB, and is designed for removable media, as NTFS is not designed for removable media. Although exFAT was first used in an embedded system (Windows CE), that is not Microsoft's direction.
      My Computer


 

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 22:49.
Find Us