Prev: For your consideration
Next: Did you switch from Windows to Linux? How did you find the process?
From: RodMcKay on 12 Nov 2009 07:09
I'm confused, I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
system that was formatted to FAT32. Yet I've seen posts about Linux
under NTFS. One of the main reasons I've not switched from Windows to
Linux, besides tons of Windows programs I use and learning curve, was
precisely because of the file size issue re FAT32. I now have a hdd
of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
huge deterrent.

But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?

From: Bryce on 12 Nov 2009 08:25
RodMcKay wrote:

> I'm confused, I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
> system that was formatted to FAT32. Yet I've seen posts about Linux
> under NTFS. One of the main reasons I've not switched from Windows to
> Linux, besides tons of Windows programs I use and learning curve, was
> precisely because of the file size issue re FAT32. I now have a hdd
> of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
> huge deterrent.
>
> But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
> Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?

Linux can read and write to partitions formatted with NTFS, so you
would not lose access to your data. Linux installs onto a separate
partition (or separate hard drive) that is formatted with a Linux
file system like EXT3 that supports additional file attributes and
permissions Linux needs and Windows hath not.

Some of your Windows programs might work using Wine on Linux, but
don't count on it. Many, many Linux apps available to replace them.

Learning curve? You betcha! Well worth it for me.

Bryce
From: J.O. Aho on 12 Nov 2009 12:59
RodMcKay wrote:
> I'm confused, I was told initially that Linux had to be put on a
> system that was formatted to FAT32. Yet I've seen posts about Linux
> under NTFS.

Even if there are Linux distributions that allows to be installed beside
microsoft on an vfat/ntfs file system, it's far better to run Linux on one of
the many Linux or Unix file systems as these are better fir for multi user
environments and are faster than those offered from microsoft, and don't
suffer from the fragmentation issues.


> One of the main reasons I've not switched from Windows to
> Linux, besides tons of Windows programs I use and learning curve, was
> precisely because of the file size issue re FAT32.

The vfat file size limitation is only for your microsoft files that you have
stored on a vfat media, you can always copy those over to a real file system
like jfs, xfs.

When it comes to learning curves, if you know how to operate a computer mouse,
move the pointer on the screen over images (we call those icons) and then
click on the left mouse button, then you know everything you need to know to
be able to do most tasks, if you want to be as cool as all the microsoft
hackers who makes register hacking, then you can spend as much time to learn
how to use the Linux console (sure it takes far less time and easier to learn
than hacking microsoft registers).

When it comes to your games, you can do as Bryce suggest and use a microsoft
windows api for Linux like wine, crossover office or cedega, if thats not
enough to run all your applications, then you have the possibility to use
viritualization (if you have 64bit CPU with virtualization support) and run
microsoft in almost native speed in a window on your Linux machine. If you
just have an older intel 64 bit or a 32bit CPU, then you can use an emulator
like win4lin.


> I now have a hdd
> of 200 gigs and an attached external drive of 500 gigs so that was a
> huge deterrent.

Thats nothing, I have a 3TB slice for my files, and no, I don't own a 3T hard
drive nor are they RAID:ed.


> But I can't get a definitive answer when googling, it seems. Can
> Linux be used with NTFS so that we can have our large drives?

Maybe you used bing instead of google and never realized that, the information
can easily be found at google.


--

//Aho
From: Maurice Batey on 13 Nov 2009 09:51
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.

--
/\/\aurice
(Retired in Surrey, UK) Registered Linux User #487649
Linux Mandriva 2009.1 32-bit PowerPack (i686 kernel)
KDE 4.2.4 Virtualbox 3.0.4 Firefox 3.0.15
(Replace "nomail.afraid" by "bcs" to reply by email)

From: RodMcKay on 13 Nov 2009 20:48
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
(?).

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>

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

 |  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?