Announcement

**omegaRED** · 22 September 2001, 15:52

Well i`d go SP2, G200 drivers, DX8a, SoundCard, IE5.5(or 6, i hesitated before installing it, but it hadnt crash yet, then again i mostly use Opera ... ) ...

AC update, i cant remember, i *think* its in SP2, NTFS is just a tad bit slower than FAT32, but more secure (you wont notice much of a difference speed wise).

I had a drop in FPS in UT once i installed it on Win2k, some 5 fps, and i didnt remember ALL the changes i made in the settings, preferences & .ini files, but when i tweaked it the frames came back

**spazm_1999** · 22 September 2001, 17:49

NTFS offer more protection than Fat32 but it's a little slower. In Fat32 i bench 16867 and with NTFS i do 16692 so the speed isn't truly a problem... stay in Fat32 if you don't need a big security.

For games... u'll have to test... i had some that were 5-10 fps faster on W98 and i had 4-5 that were 30-50 fps faster on w2k depend on the game.

Spazm

**Guru** · 23 September 2001, 02:57

Originally posted by omegaRED
Well i`d go SP2, G200 drivers, DX8a, SoundCard, IE5.5(or 6, i hesitated before installing it, but it hadnt crash yet, then again i mostly use Opera ... ) ...

Nonononononononon NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! If you done that nothing but an format C: will give you back your lost performance!!! Always SP2 -> INF -> DX -> rest of your drivers!!!!!!!

**omegaRED** · 23 September 2001, 04:22

Ok Guru calm down ... i had no problems installing Win2k in that order, but if you say otherwise ... Ovi, go with Guru`s suggestion, hopefully it`ll prevent problems ....

**Admiral** · 23 September 2001, 05:53

Personally, I've installed it on FAT32 mainly because I can't see the NTFS partition from 98 or DOS so if anything goes wrong and I can't repair the installation by running the Win2k setup again I'm screwed (or almost). Plus, I didn't find a good antivirus program for 2k yet, so I'm scaning both the partitions from 98 (with NAV2001) and there's always the moving files between partitions thing that I don't like to be able to do only from Win2k.
But you're not dual booting so there's no problem.

I just reinstalled Win98 and 2k yesterday to make sure the security options were not compromised after I got rid of the NIMDA worm.
First thing I installed was SP2 (though last time I finished with the drivers and installed SP2 after); IE6 ; DX 8.0a; modem, sound and video card drivers.
I'm not sure if you'll need the Chipset inf update, Win2k might already have the latest drivers installed. Run it anyway and if it promts tha "the current operating system already has the latest drivers installed" it means you don't need it.

**Rags** · 23 September 2001, 08:36

Originally posted by spazm_1999
NTFS offer more protection than Fat32 but it's a little slower. In Fat32 i bench 16867 and with NTFS i do 16692 so the speed isn't truly a problem... stay in Fat32 if you don't need a big security.

NTFS is faster than FAT32 in nearly everything that matters if you are running a single partition Win2k or XP install. Seek times are slower, but that's easily made up for when you take into account that the large moves are actually faster, no scan disk is required, defragging takes less time, and if you system kicks and a reset is required, then there is no scan on startup. Oh, and let's not forget that cross linked files are no longer a problem. I think overall disk integrity is worth the loss in multiple small file transfer speed (which really is nil).

Rags

**spazm_1999** · 23 September 2001, 09:03

Rags, I don't have a sigle partition drive. And the test i made with both Sandra and Winvbench 99 showed me that running my 3rd partition in NTFS was slowing it down a little(besides the 20mb i loose for the MFT). I'm still wondering if i should put it in NTFS or FAT32.

Spazm

**xortam** · 23 September 2001, 09:15

First of all, your partition size is going to affect the performance of various FSes. More advanced FSes like NTFS5 will be a better choice on very large partitions. Also, your file sizes and application types need to be considered. Use a real benchmark like WinBench to determine the real-world performance of your system as you use it. Look at the application profiles and choose those that match your use and optimize towards that. Robustness, efficient garbage collection/space allocation, and security should factor in appropriately as well as performance.

**Indiana** · 23 September 2001, 09:36

I found NTFS to be slightly slower as well and this on a very larga partition (80Gig RAID) and with large filetransfers (vid-capturing). But the difference is minimal and the extra advantages of NTFS like especially support for files larger than 4GB (absolutely necessary for vidcapturing) and the MUCH better data integrity (you don't have to fear you've lost lots of important data after a lockup, power-failure,..) more than compensate for the only barely measurable speed-difference. The extra security options might be important for some people as well (I don't care).

The only annoying thing about NTFS is that it can't be read from Win98. But since I've ditched the Creative SBLive I've completely switched to Win2k - no need for Win9x here anymore.

**xortam** · 23 September 2001, 09:44

I always format a shared partition with a common FS such as FAT32 to place apps and data files that I share between various OSes. I place the OS and OS specific app/data on the FS type which is optimal to that OS. The OS is installed on a removable boot drive and the shared partitions(s) are fixed in the main box.

**spazm_1999** · 23 September 2001, 09:58

Originally posted by Indiana
The only annoying thing about NTFS is that it can't be read from Win98. But since I've ditched the Creative SBLive I've completely switched to Win2k - no need for Win9x here anymore.

I've never tryed it myself but i've had a software called NTFS for Win98.... if it works normally u could use NTFS with win98.... the only thing i don't know is if it can read NTFS5...

Spazm

**Indiana** · 23 September 2001, 11:07

I've had it installed and it actually works very well and also with NTFS5. But the free version only supports reading, you have to buy the program to get writing enabled. And this is said to not get you rid of the filesize limit even if you use the write-supported version to acces a NTFS partition from Win98.

But as said I have no need for Win98 anymore, I only needed it because Creative is unable to write Win2k drivers..

**Ovi** · 23 September 2001, 11:59

Hi!
First off, THANKS A LOT GUYS!!!!
Okay, so the sequence is SP2 -> INF -> DX -> rest of the drivers!
Today I was reading the Win2k readme file (silly me, I should have read it before!

) and it said that some Dos programs will require FAT32 to be able to run. Since I'm using Borland Turbo C++ v3 these days as part of my C programming subject, I guess I'll have to stick to FAT32 for the time being!
About games, it looks like I'll have only a small drop in performane in general! I can't wait to check it out!!
As for the compatibility update, I'll check the readme of SP2 to see if its there.
Thanks again for the ultra helpful tips!
Cheers

Ovi

**Rags** · 23 September 2001, 15:39

Borland C++ 3.0 for DOS under NTFS

Originally posted by Ovi
Hi!
First off, THANKS A LOT GUYS!!!!
. Since I'm using Borland Turbo C++ v3 these days as part of my C programming subject, I guess I'll have to stick to FAT32 for the time being!....
Ovi

Not a problem at all here using that very same program, as a matter of fact, I love using it in windowed mode when I have a few things going on at once. NTFS hasn't given me a single problem with it.

Rags

Announcement

Win2k installation questions

Win2k installation questions

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment