Mac OS Journaled vs. FAT 32

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by cristovao, Aug 23, 2010.

  1. cristovao macrumors 6502a

    cristovao

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Location:
    Calgary
    #1
    I did a quick search and couldn't find anything specifically on this so wondering, is there a real advantage to using one or the other?

    I have an internal secondary 1TB drive that holds all my data/media and am curious if formatting it to Mac OS Journaled would provide better performance or stability over formatting it FAT 32. I've read a few discussions online that have arguments for both. What do you think?
     
  2. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #2
    FAT32 is quite old, HFS is too, but as you primarily use Mac OS X (I suppose), HFS+ is the better choice due to HFS+ being written for Mac OS.


     
  3. Grannyville7989 macrumors 6502a

    Grannyville7989

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    #3
    The only reason you should consider FAT32 for a file system is if you want a Windows OS to be able to read and write to it without additional software.
     
  4. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #4
    Windows can read/write NTFS without additional software.
     
  5. Grannyville7989 macrumors 6502a

    Grannyville7989

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    #5
    But OS X cannot write to NTFS. Additional software would be required for it to do so.
     
  6. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #6
    Not on the Windows side. You said:
    You didn't say:
    And you can enable NTFS in Mac OS X 10.6 without additional software.
     
  7. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    Big effing deal. NTFS-3G is free. It allows the Mac user to read, write, format, and partition NTFS drives. Because virtually every Windows machine supports NTFS and the Mac supports NTFS with the installation of free software, there is practically no reason to format a volume as FAT32.

    To be clear: MacOS X can read NTFS out-of-the-box. In MacOS X 10.6, write access to NTFS is available, but is disabled. NTFS write-access can be enabled from the Terminal command line. NTFS-3G works well with MacOS X 10.6, but it is required only for older versions of MacOS X.
     
  8. Grannyville7989 macrumors 6502a

    Grannyville7989

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    #8
    I think I must have fluffed up somewhere when making my post but never mind. The original post states that he's using Mac OS anyway so formatting a drive as NTFS is out of the question, if you're using Disk Utility.
     
  9. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #9
    Again, that's not true. If NTFS is enabled on the Mac, Disk Utility will format drives in NTFS.
    Picture 3.png
     
  10. Grannyville7989 macrumors 6502a

    Grannyville7989

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    #10
    I never knew this was possible. How do you go about doing it?
     
  11. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #11
    If you install the NTFS-3G drivers it will work, I don't know about Paragon or the enabling of NTFS write capabilities in SL. Look at the quote from GGJstudios I used in my first post.
     
  12. Grannyville7989 macrumors 6502a

    Grannyville7989

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    #12
    Ah, I thought it meant that you could have native read/write for NTFS on Snow Leopard without the need of additional third-party software.
     
  13. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #13
    Yes, you can. Read the quoted text in the second post in this thread.
     
  14. Grannyville7989 macrumors 6502a

    Grannyville7989

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    #14
    Ah, I did not notice that link. I feel like a bit of a doughnut for not noticing. Thank you.
     
  15. cristovao thread starter macrumors 6502a

    cristovao

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Location:
    Calgary
    #15
    MOSJ vs fat 32

    OK, great responses and info but I guess I should've made a few things clear;

    • on this G5, I'm running OS 10.5x
    • I'm not concerned with using this drive on a Windows system
    • Lastly and probably most important, does OS Journaled present better read/write speeds over FAT 32?
     
  16. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #16
    If you're not planning to access the drive from a Windows system, HFS is your best bet.
     
  17. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #17
    FAT32 is inherently limited to files less than 4 GB in size. HFS+ does not have this limitation. So if you have any files that are or will be larger than 4 GB, FAT32 is not viable.

    Since you said you plan to use the drive for media, I suspect some files will be larger than 4 GB.

    Read more here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT32
     
  18. deadwulfe macrumors 6502a

    deadwulfe

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    #18
    Use HFS+. It's a journaled file system that doesn't need to be defragged and allows for files larger than 4GB. Fat32 is none of those things.
     
  19. cristovao thread starter macrumors 6502a

    cristovao

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Location:
    Calgary
    #19
    HFS+ it is!

    Thanks for all the advice and help. I ended up going with HFS+ and to give you an idea, when I originally transferred 500GB of data onto the first FAT 32 formatted 1TB driver, it took over 15 hours to copy over. Copying the same data from one HFS+ drive to another: Only 9 hours. Obvious performance boost.
     
  20. levroi macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    #20
    FAT32 has a 4GB limit for files too

    And FAT32 doesn't support files that are over 4 GB, that is a big bummer too when you work with raw video files. So better of with the Mac journaled format...

    (sorry, deadwulfe & chown33 -& perhaps even more- already said this, didn't read thoroughly...)
     

Share This Page