I know the answer is " it's up to you", but for folks that use a lot of
portable disk space ...

I just bought a 500Gb USB 2.0 external drive (MyBook) and it came
preformatted as Fat32. The only purpose for this external drive is archiving
, portability (not day-to-day use) . I have a few internal 300gb SATA drives
that I'll migrate here ( to better organize), so thinking it over before I
start. I haven't used Fat32 in several years on my 'media pc' and
debating - is it worth it to reformat as NTFS to be able to have large file
sizes ? ( Fat32 limit = 4gb and if I record long video , or copy a DVD it
might exceed that). Also I have lots of pictures - many small file sizes, so
with Fat32 I'll use a min of 32k per picture. ( I just copied a 9k file - on
NTFS it uses 12k - on fat32 it uses 32k - a few thousand pictures and I'm
wasting a lot more space on Fat32) My current drives are mostly NTFS
partitions so I could "leave the really big files" there.

I currently have only Windows boxes , but going to build a separate Ubuntu
box and MAY want something off a portable drive but I could work around
that. Experiences ? - better to leave as-is for OS portability ? Or will
Fat32 use too much overhead ? etc
Or another format that's compatible with multiple OS'es ?

Unless you have a concern about compatibility with other OS's, it would be
best to reformat it in NTFS. It is more efficient and reliable and, as you
notes, the 4GB file size can be a problem.

--

"- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
news:zqCdnTSloth5mw7VnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>I know the answer is " it's up to you", but for folks that use a lot of
>portable disk space ...
>
> I just bought a 500Gb USB 2.0 external drive (MyBook) and it came
> preformatted as Fat32. The only purpose for this external drive is
> archiving , portability (not day-to-day use) . I have a few internal 300gb
> SATA drives that I'll migrate here ( to better organize), so thinking it
> over before I start. I haven't used Fat32 in several years on my 'media
> pc' and debating - is it worth it to reformat as NTFS to be able to have
> large file sizes ? ( Fat32 limit = 4gb and if I record long video , or
> copy a DVD it might exceed that). Also I have lots of pictures - many
> small file sizes, so with Fat32 I'll use a min of 32k per picture. ( I
> just copied a 9k file - on NTFS it uses 12k - on fat32 it uses 32k - a few
> thousand pictures and I'm wasting a lot more space on Fat32) My current
> drives are mostly NTFS partitions so I could "leave the really big files"
> there.
>
> I currently have only Windows boxes , but going to build a separate Ubuntu
> box and MAY want something off a portable drive but I could work around
> that. Experiences ? - better to leave as-is for OS portability ? Or will
> Fat32 use too much overhead ? etc
> Or another format that's compatible with multiple OS'es ?
>
>

Hello

NTFS is readable and writable with Linux I use an external drive that is
formatted as NTFS and have no problems using the drive in Linux.

Mike
"GTS" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:g6vbd8$gpc$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Unless you have a concern about compatibility with other OS's, it would be
> best to reformat it in NTFS. It is more efficient and reliable and, as
> you notes, the 4GB file size can be a problem.
>
> --
>
> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
> news:zqCdnTSloth5mw7VnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>I know the answer is " it's up to you", but for folks that use a lot of
>>portable disk space ...
>>
>> I just bought a 500Gb USB 2.0 external drive (MyBook) and it came
>> preformatted as Fat32. The only purpose for this external drive is
>> archiving , portability (not day-to-day use) . I have a few internal
>> 300gb SATA drives that I'll migrate here ( to better organize), so
>> thinking it over before I start. I haven't used Fat32 in several years
>> on my 'media pc' and debating - is it worth it to reformat as NTFS to be
>> able to have large file sizes ? ( Fat32 limit = 4gb and if I record long
>> video , or copy a DVD it might exceed that). Also I have lots of
>> pictures - many small file sizes, so with Fat32 I'll use a min of 32k per
>> picture. ( I just copied a 9k file - on NTFS it uses 12k - on fat32 it
>> uses 32k - a few thousand pictures and I'm wasting a lot more space on
>> Fat32) My current drives are mostly NTFS partitions so I could "leave the
>> really big files" there.
>>
>> I currently have only Windows boxes , but going to build a separate
>> Ubuntu box and MAY want something off a portable drive but I could work
>> around that. Experiences ? - better to leave as-is for OS portability ?
>> Or will Fat32 use too much overhead ? etc
>> Or another format that's compatible with multiple OS'es ?
>>
>>
>
>