FAT32 vs NTFS, can Linux be used under NTFS? [Linux Help]

Prev: For your consideration
Next: Did you switch from Windows to Linux? How did you find the process?

From: ray on 13 Nov 2009 21:22

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:48:28 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
> <maurice(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
>>
>>> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>>> system that was formatted to FAT32.
>>
>> Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
>>can use FAT32.
>>
>>Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
>>file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to an
>>NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining problems)
>>so when some of us needed to keep information that could be accessed by
>>both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a. VFAT) partition.
>
> Yes, but FAT32 is the problem. I didn't realize there were others
> besides FAT32 and NTFS. FAT32's size problems with larger drives was
> for me a serious drawback to Linux. Though I'm not sure I'm
> understanding correctly, FAT32 is only necessary if you're going to
> dual-boot (?). If I'm understanding correctly, you can format to
> another file system for Linux that _does_ support the >30 gig drives
> (?).

How is that a drawback to Linux? Linux uses it's own much advanced (in
comparison) file systems. You don't have to format it - the Linux
installation process for all major distributions will give you a choice
of file system to use during installation - none of which is either fat
or ntfs. Yes, the Linux file systems support greater than 30 gig drives -
actually, they support greater than 30 gb partitions.

It's also true that Linux support to read from and write to NTFS
partitions is now mature.

>
> Anyway, now that the size issue has proven to be something I might have
> seriously misunderstood, the rest is just a question of figuring out how
> to get around.
>
> I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I absolutely
> need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my Paint Shop Pro
> which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g> WordPerfect I believe
> already has a Linux flavour so no worries there. Agent may have a Linux
> equivalent in Pan; Outlook may have Evolution. Don't know about
> Filemaker Pro database; since it comes from the Mac OS system, perhaps
> they're already into Linux, too. And don't know if I'll find something
> as easy to use as DVD Shrink for DVD ripping ... <sigh> Long work
> ahead. And that's just scratching the surface ... <g>

I've found GIMP to be quite usable. If you're processing raw files, you
might also want to look at ufraw. I believe the Linux wordperfect is
defunct - I have not been able to find one to install for several years.
OpenOffice should fill the bill - if not, there are several other office
suites.

If you do a web search, you'll find several documents where folks have
outlined Linux equivalents for many MS programs - and don't forget WINE
if you absolutely have to have a particular program - many will run on
Linux via WINE.

>
> Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
> user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out in
> left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
> limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.
>
> _Anything_, practically, to get away from Window$. :oD

From: VWWall on 14 Nov 2009 00:20

From: Unruh on 14 Nov 2009 00:26

VWWall <vwall(a)large.invalid> writes:

>RodMcKay wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
>> <maurice(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>>>> system that was formatted to FAT32.
>>> Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
>>> can use FAT32.
>>>
>>> Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
>>> file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to
>>> an NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining
>>> problems) so when some of us needed to keep information that could
>>> be accessed by both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a.
>>> VFAT) partition.
>>
>> Yes, but FAT32 is the problem. I didn't realize there were others
>> besides FAT32 and NTFS. FAT32's size problems with larger drives was
>> for me a serious drawback to Linux. Though I'm not sure I'm
>> understanding correctly, FAT32 is only necessary if you're going to
>> dual-boot (?). If I'm understanding correctly, you can format to
>> another file system for Linux that _does_ support the >30 gig drives
>> (?).

Fat 32 is useful with Linux only as a vehicle to exchange data with windows.
Otherwise stay away from it with Linux. Linux can support both huge drives and
files.

>FAT32 has always "supported" drives larger than the 32GB which Windows
>format limits it to. I have a 68.2GB FAT32 partition on a 200GB hard
>drive with WinXP in a 76.3GB NTFS partition and five other ext3 Linux
>partitions with both PCLOS and Mepis Linux distros installed.

>This particular drive is multi-booted with a second 80GB drive with
>another two Linus distros. The GRUB Linux boot loader lets me boot to
>any of the six OS's on the two drives with a simple menu choice.

>I wouldn't recommend this set-up, but it shows file size is not a problem!

>--
>Virg Wall

From: J.O. Aho on 14 Nov 2009 04:44

RodMcKay wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:51:43 +0000, Maurice Batey
> <maurice(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:09:29 -0500, RodMcKay wrote:
>>
>>> I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
>>> system that was formatted to FAT32.
>> Absolutely not so! Linux has its own excellent file systems, and
>> can use FAT32.
>>
>> Because Microsoft would not release sufficient details of their NTFS
>> file system architecture, it was not 100% safe for Linux to write to
>> an NTFS file system (though I believe there are now few remaining
>> problems) so when some of us needed to keep information that could
>> be accessed by both Windows and Linux, we kept it on a FAT32 (a.k.a.
>> VFAT) partition.
>
> Yes, but FAT32 is the problem. I didn't realize there were others
> besides FAT32 and NTFS. FAT32's size problems with larger drives was
> for me a serious drawback to Linux. Though I'm not sure I'm
> understanding correctly, FAT32 is only necessary if you're going to
> dual-boot (?). If I'm understanding correctly, you can format to
> another file system for Linux that _does_ support the >30 gig drives
> (?).

vfat supports up to 8TiB large partitions with max 4GiB file size.
It's microsoft windows which have had limitations on hard drive sizes and of
course the hardware used.

You should never use vfat as the file system to install Linux on (even if it
is possible), as you will loose all the multi user privileges, as vfat is a
single user no privileges type of file system, one of the worst file system
ever created. The only time you use vfat in Linux is when you mount that vfat
formated mp3, memory stick, camera, your friends usb hard drive... the same
applies to ntfs which supports partitions up to 16TiB and files up to 16TiB.

The default file system used in Linux is ext3, it supports partitions up to
32TiB and files up to 2TiB and it will soon be replaced with ext4 (most likely
next year) which supports partitions up to 1EiB and files up to 16TiB.

Myself I use an industry standard file system as it's faster than ext3 (which
is faster than vfat and ntfs) and has good features as swap over to read only
if it detects problems, this way you don't corrupt the data by mistake.

Just drop that vfat thing completely.

> Anyway, now that the size issue has proven to be something I might
> have seriously misunderstood, the rest is just a question of figuring
> out how to get around.

No only that, but that Linux would use a lousy file system which isn't made
for multi user usage.

> I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I
> absolutely need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my
> Paint Shop Pro which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g>

If you don't like Gimp which IMHO is quite good, except it's GTK based, you
can try Pixel and can be found at http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/

> Don't know about Filemaker Pro database;

Glom http://www.glom.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

> And don't know if
> I'll find something as easy to use as DVD Shrink for DVD ripping ...

k9copy http://k9copy.sourceforge.net/

> Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
> user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out
> in left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
> limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.

The difficulties all lies in your brain, just drop those thoughts and you will
see it don't take so much time to learn how to use Linux and for most
microsoft users it's a big surprise that you can do all the things without the
use of console, just point and click. Most of the point and click things goes
a lot faster to do in the console.

--

//Aho

From: TJ on 14 Nov 2009 15:15

RodMcKay wrote:

>
> I've had programs trickling in at the back of my mind that I
> absolutely need to find Linux equivalents for. I was forgetting my
> Paint Shop Pro which I absolutely adore. Gimp is _not_ nice! <g>
>
Gimp is a lot more powerful than it often gets credit for. The main
thing is, it has a user interface that's very different than other image
manipulators, and it takes some getting used to. One place you might
want to look at is http://meetthegimp.org/ This site has a series of
weekly video podcasts on using The Gimp, starting with the most basic of
functions and proceeding to the more advanced stuff. All "episodes" are
available for download. Be sure to start with #1 by clicking on the "Get
all videos" link on the home page. By the time you get through all 120+
episodes, you should be very comfortable with the Gimp interface.

> Anyway, lots of research to do. Trouble is that although I'm a power
> user and have years of taking care of my own system, Linux is far out
> in left field for me so I still see a large learning curve ahead. My
> limited exposure to Linux makes me very hopeful though.
>
Don't believe all the "learning curve" hype. How long did it take you to
learn enough about Windows to become a power user? Years, I'll bet. It
won't take nearly as long to become comfortable with Linux. New users
who never touched a computer don't take any more time to learn enough to
use Linux than they do to learn Windows. IMHO, the learning curve from
Linux to Windows would be MUCH steeper than the other way around. Of
course, since so few would do such a crazy thing, practically no studies
have been done.

> _Anything_, practically, to get away from Window$. :oD
>
Amen.

TJ

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: For your consideration
Next: Did you switch from Windows to Linux? How did you find the process?