Well, normally anymore I would just let this type of response go as it wouldn't be 
worth my time to try and point out the errors in your response, but there are some 
points that are totally wrong and need some clarifications.  Not for arguments sake 
as there really is no argument if you care to spend time studying the two file systems 
indepth, their design and how they totally differ.  You are also blaming WIndows 
for something that if you did some research, you would find may just be a Sony issue 
as I previously stated.

You said;


  >Background:  ""I want to measure the read-write speed of the stick relative to 
a couple of other sticks which were measured with NTFS format, after which it would 
be returned to FAT32.
   The question "which is more efficient, FAT32 or NTFS?" 
has no meaning until you know what it's going to be used for.""

Actually, this is untrue as seen here:   http://www.ntfs.com/quest2.htm

Doesn't matter what it is used for when the volume gets below a certian size.  The 
file system can't adjust it's basic design to accomodate a smaller volume to become 
more efficient.  NTFS has more overhead no matter the size of the volume period.

   > "Which is more efficient, a Rolls Royce or a Mack truck?"

TOTALLY Apples and Oranges here.  PLEASE!!  A Rolls or a MACK?  A better analogy 
(though not perfect) might be the difference between a freight truck versus a freight 
train.  A truck is more efficient with smaller loads, while a train would be more 
efficient for larger loads.  LOL, but even then, you wouldn't use a Mack truck to 
move one or two people would you??  How would that be more efficient?

    >"NTFS might seem inefficient for only 2GB, but at the end of the day, if that 
stick needed specific attributes which only NTFS could supply, then the comparative 
efficiency of FAT32  would be zero."

It's the extra features and requirements that add to the overhead of the NTFS file 
system, and it's dependencies make it not the best choice for removeable media.  
I know of NO memory card or stick that requires the NTFS additions.  Quite the contrary, 
 NON recommend the NTFS file system as the internal operation, read/write method 
and internal maintenace are totally different than an electrical/mechanical HDD. 
 It, (solid state memory)  can be scrambled much easier if not removed correctly 
when formatted NTFS as opposed to FAT.  NTFS CAN NOT be optimised for quick removal 
for multiple reasons in current operating systems.  That is only available for FAT 
(so that you don't have to use the "safe to remove" ICON) as for one thing, the disk 
cache has to be disabled.  Add to that the reports from others that the Sony's proprietary 
ways may have limited the stick (and/or many of them), to use the FAT system (possibly 
due to their camera requirements).  Since I have never liked Sony's proprietary products, 
I have never used them, but know people who have and most have disgarded them due 
to many issues.


    >"But I wasn't looking for a debate about file systems - I was hoping someone 
could give me the answer to a technical problem which, at first sight, defies scientific 
logic?  And of course, we all know that Windows NEVER does that..."

Windows is code written by men.  It can't do anything other than what it is programmed 
to do.  That's why we in the programming and Robotics world would run "what if" scenerios 
constantly, along with bug reports, and change/add to the code as we need to.  All 
code has bugs and deficiencies.   That's just the way it is.  No one was debating 
file systems that I observed.  Only pointing out that NTFS isn't the best to use 
in this particular case and my observation from other reports around the web that 
Sony has programmed some memory to only use the FAT system..  You can do and think 
what you want.  Fact still remains that if you try to format it on say, XP or other 
systems and it still won't work, then you would have to contact Sony to see if they 
might have a better answer.  Most likely, it isn't a Windows problem or if it is, 
it may be a limitation of an old operating system/incompatibility.  I use W2K and 
XP, and format other types of SS memory, 4 gig and up to NTFS, but only for test 
purposes and compatibility.  I most often run into problems with secure digital media 
and sizes of media smaller than 4 gig in size.  Manufacturers are always changing 
the internals and the firmware so I don't think anyone here would hazard a 100% gauranteed 
answer to your question...  Sorry..

• Reply or follow-up to this message

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum