How many sectors are in one cluster for a 1.5 GB partition using FAT16 or FAT32?
541242
The sectors allways will be of 512 bytes\n\nFor FAT 16 the maximum amount of clusters are 65.535, each of them of 32Kb. So the amount of sectors will be 64.\n\nFor FAT 32 with a cluster size of 4Kb the number of clusters will be 375.206. So the number of sectors will be 8.
469210
Above answer is wrong. This "1TB disk" consists of two 500GB disks. Either you can use them as RAID 0 (2x500GB = 1TB) or as RAID 1 (mirrored = 500GB, on both disks is exact the same data).\nUntil now i've never seen a PC hard disk larger than 500GB.\nThese are the largest ones\nhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?N=2010150014+1035307886&Submit=ENE&SubCategory=14
17310
Depends on what you're looking for.  For max performance and disk space, RAID1; for a balance of both performance and data integrity, RAID5.  If you add a fourth drive, the RAID5 performance should increase by a factor large enough to offset the speed advantage RAID1 gives, but if you're limited to three, and want max performance, RAID1 is the way to go.  Just make sure you have a backup solution if you're data is important.\n\nRAID1 gives the best performance because it doesn't have to concern itself with writing separate data out to the RAID5 "parity" drive.  It simply spans all disks in the array when writing.  Read performance is affected as well, since, when reading, additional parity calculations are performed in a RAID5 configuration.  RAID1 simply reads the data segmented during the write, and re-assembles it in the proper sequence.
685192
Try this free powerful partition software\nhttp://www.ranish.com/part/\nTo merge partitions, delete the 2 partitions and make 1 big partition after.
601129
Cause FTFS is not a valid Windows recongized Partition. Only Fat, Fat16, Fat32 NTFS Are Valid partitions for Windows.
1054612
there is no limitation........ and theoratically its about 160GB......... but at now many tools are available which makes your harddrive NTFS even if you have more than this bytes. but exactly research telling about more tahn 32TB
735898
Sata-1 would be a good place for the primary drive. When you expand add to 2, 3 , etc.
505429
If you drive is formatted using FAT16 the drive can store 512 files in a root folder, when 512 files are in the root the drive is "full". A FAT12 drive can store 224 files in the root folder before being "full". Both FAT32 and NTFS file systems have no limit on the number of files in the root folder, however there are file number limits, in other words you can have space left but have the maximum number of files that teh file system type can track. \n\nQuestions to ask to figure this out include:\nOverall hard drive size as labeled by manufacturer.\nPartitioning scheme.\nFile system type.\nTotal number of files on the drive.\n\nFrank
1025555
I would do NTFS.\n\nNTFS may be faster...\n   - smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM\n   - indexed design more efficient for many files per directory\n   - small file data embedded in dir level, avoids seek to data chain\n   - above factors make fragmentation less onerous than for FATxx\n   - 4k cluster size matches processor's natural paging size\n...or slower...\n   - extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption\n   - small clusters may fragment data cluster chains\n\nNTFS may be safer...\n   - transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations\n   - file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.\n   - automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)\n...or more at risk...\n   - no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS\n   - no maintenance OS for NTFS\n   - malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty\n   - transaction rollback does not preserve user data\n   - transaction rollback does not help other causes of corruption\n   - more limited range of maintenance tools\n   - automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)\n\nNTFS may be more space-efficient...\n   - smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G\n   - may include data of small files within the directory level\n   - NTFS's bitmap structure is smaller than FAT32's dual FAT\n   - sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage\n...or less so...\n   - NTFS has large MFT structure\n   - larger per-file directory metadata space\n\nI would use NTFS where:\n\nUsers have professional-grade IT admin, including backup \nUsers need to hide data more than they need to salvage it \nApplications require files over 4G in size \nHard drive exceeds the 137G barrier \nBut while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...\n\nData can easily be recovered \nFile system structure can be manually checked and repaired \nMalware can be scanned for and cleaned
550481
When a computer has a hard drive that is/was not partitioned  using DOS's FDISK partition tool, and formatted FAT 12 or FAT 16, authentic IBM and or Microsoft DOS through 6.22 for Microsoft and 7.0 for IBM the single largest partition that can be "seen", accessed and or used is 2 Gb. Additionally authentic IBM and or Microsoft DOS through 6.22 for Microsoft and 7.0 for IBM do not have the ability to "see", access and or use partition types of any size that are formatted with a file system other than FAT, such as Windows XP's NTFS or any Unix/Linux partition.\n\nAs for booting from the cd drive, there are several factors:\n1) Some older CD Drives canot read the boot image from the CD\n2) Some CD drives "lose" the ability to boot as they begin to fail\n3) The systems BIOS needs to have the CD drive(s) listed in the boot order, preferrably before the hard drive.\n4) And of course the CD disk in the drive must be a bootable one.\n\nWindows 98 had a file system called FAT32, which is also "invisable" to a real DOS boot, however a Windows 98 Boot Floppy can boot in what looks like real DOS and access the FAT32 partitions.\n\nFrank
594343
You can have 4 partitions but you can only have 1 primary partition.\n\nVisit the following site for a tutorial:\n\nhttp://fdisk.radified.com/
288700
Yes you can ... all you need to do is assign that 15 Gb to extended partition and then  create 1 or multiple logical drives in it and there you can use it.\n For Win 200/Xp/2003 Type Compmgmt.msc in Start/Run and follow the above mentioned procedure . refer windows Help for more info\n Also you can convert From FAT to NTFS/FAT32 but vice-versa is not possible. also Converting from FAT32 to NTFS is not possible and also vice versa.
1106699
There are so many tools present about bad sectors remover but these are best . You can use sea map tool or partation magic also retest the bad areas if can be correct then he correct them.\n\nwhich bad sectors can't be removed you can make partition by leaving that area un-partitioned with partition magic.
843311
FAT32 or NTFS: Making the Choice\nChoosing the file system to use on a Windows XP system is seldom easy, and frequently it's not just a one time decision.. Different factors can blur the decision process, and some tradeoffs are more than likely. No matter what method you choose to adopt Windows XP, you will have to face the FAT32 versus NTFS decision. Clean and upgrade installs both require you to address the situation early on in the process. Later on, if you add a drive or repartition an existing drive the decision process faces you yet again. Circumstances may dictate the choice for you, but in most cases the options have to be weighed and the tradeoffs of using each method analyzed. Let's look at the available choices.\n\nFile System Choices\nMost articles discussing file system choices look at FAT32 and NTFS as the two available choices. In reality, there are three systems which could be selected. FAT, FAT32, and NTFS. Granted, FAT32 and NTFS are the primary choices, but on occasion you'll still find the need for a FAT volume. A FAT volume has a maximum size of 2GB and supports MS-DOS as well as being used for some dual boot configurations, but backward compatibility is about  the only reason I can think of that FAT should ever be used, other than for the occasional floppy diskette. That said, let's move on to FAT32 and NTFS.\n\nWhich File System to Choose?\nAs much as everyone would like for there to be a stock answer to the selection question, there isn't. Different situations and needs will play a large role in the decision of which file system to adopt. There isn't any argument that NTFS offers better security and reliability. Some also say that NTFS is more flexible, but that can get rather subjective depending on the situation and work habits, whereas NTFS superiority in security and reliability is seldom challenged. Listed below are some of the most common factors to consider when deciding between FAT32 and NTFS.\n\nSecurity\nFAT32 provides very little security. A user with access to a drive using FAT32 has access to the files on that drive.\n\nNTFS allows the use of NTFS Permissions. It's much more difficult to implement, but folder and file access can be controlled individually, down to an an extreme degree if necessary. The down side of using NTFS Permissions is the chance for error and screwing up the system is greatly magnified.\n\nWindows XP Professional supports file encryption.\n  \n\nCompatibility\nNTFS volumes are not recognized by Windows 95/98/Me. This is only a concern when the system is set up for dual or multi-booting. FAT32 must be be used for any drives that must be accessed when the computer is booted from Windows 95/98 or Windows Me.\n\nAn additional note to the previous statement. Users on the network have access to shared folders no matter what disk format is being used or what version of Windows is installed.\n\nFAT and FAT32 volumes can be converted to NTFS volumes. NTFS cannot be converted to FAT32 without reformatting.\n  \n\nSpace Efficiency\nNTFS supports disk quotas, allowing you to control the amount of disk usage on a per user basis.\n\nNTFS supports file compression. FAT32 does not.\n\nHow a volume manages data is outside the scope of this article, but once you pass the 8GB partition size, NTFS handles space management much more efficiently than FAT32. Cluster sizes play an important part in how much disk space is wasted storing files. NTFS provides smaller cluster sizes and less disk space waste than FAT32.\n\nIn Windows XP, the maximum partition size that can be created using FAT32 is 32GB. This increases to 16TB (terabytes) using NTFS. There is a workaround for the 32GB limitation under FAT32, but it is a nuisance especially considering the size of drives currently being manufactured.\n  \n\nReliability\nFAT32 drives are much more susceptible to disk errors.\n\nNTFS volumes have the ability to recover from errors more readily than similar FAT32 volumes.
247032
It depends on what you need.\n\nNTFS offers better security, file compression, quotas, and encryption.\n\nIf you're multi-booting with multiple OS'es, then you will have to format some volumes as FAT, since NTFS is typically not compatible with other operating systems.\n\nHere's some articles comparing and contrasting the two.\nhttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/expert/russel_october01.mspx\nhttp://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/implFAT-c.html\nhttp://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/2744/2744.html
246042
I would suggest fat32 if you are planning on using your usb drive in computers other than Windows NT/2000 or newer.  Fat32 will provide you with the greatest portability between computers and operating systems.
1044993
Fat-16 was used mostly with windows 95\nFat-32 is used for windows 98/98se\nIs best to use Ntfs with windows xp