Windows 2000 Upgrade

There is a debate as to which is faster NTFS or FAT32. Everyone that I have chatted with on forums says that NTFS is faster better, more stable, and more secure. However, sites that test diffrent computer components and software say that FAT 32 is in fact faster. They do not talk about security and stability. For our purposes though it probably does not make a noticable difference. I believe that you will be happier with NTFS. That is what I run with Win2k and it is 99% more stable than Win98SE. I initially had problems with incompatible RAM then had a secondary controller problem that made my computer boot by itself. However, once I fixed those problems I never crash. I used to have to reboot Win98SE on average 25 times a day.

What you suggest should work.
 
As far as I know, FAT32 is faster.. and, guess what, FAT(16) is even faster !
The trouble is FAT16 sucks.
For FAT32 it has less features than NTFS and it is understandable it is slightly faster.

anyway, it does not matter that much. NTFS makes more sense on a server when security / auditing is important etc.. for a desktop it is not necessary, and the extra speed is good too.

anyway the real speed comes from memory.. memory.. memory [RAM]. A fast hard disk is good too, but memory has to be number one priority. A good system will be useless without enough memory for the job.
I have 128MB and it is fine for trading. More would be better [marginally]. less would be sub optimum.
Good video card multi monitor that's very very important. If you can afford the flat LCD panels go for it. But I drift a bit.

neo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top