I recently had to convert a laptop I use running Windows 2000 Pro from FAT32 to NTFS to provide support for a specific application.
Since then the disk performance of this system has been awful. A benchmarking utility gave me 1Mb/s on read :eek:
Bearing in mind all un-required services have been switched off, it's been checked, defragged and nothing was running in the foreground there must be something either i've done wrong or with the system.
I used the command:
convert c: /FS:NTFS /V
exactly as stated in all the documentation I have found. The conversion itself took a while but the disk is quite big (18Gb)
Examples of the performance drop include over 5 minutes to get from the ctrl-alt-del login screen to the desktop, 1 minute to bring up the help window after hitting F1 from the VBA IDE (that's the window, not the content!) and general awful performance.
Any help would be gratefully appreciated.
Cheers - Robert.
From what I have heard it is strongly recommended NOT to change from fat to ntfs without formatting. So you dont have much info to loose (which is probably not the case) easiest way just to do low lvl formatting and then install all over again. If not, try switching back to fat, though I doubt it will work.
hi,
thanks for the response. is it "hear say" that you got the recommendation from or is there somewhere i can read about it?
cheers - robert.
Unfortunately I do not have a link, but I am pretty sure I've read it somewhere.... I''d say it was one of computer magazines, and something about optimizing windows... I know it is probably the most unspecific description possible, but I just dont recall exact title. Probably someone else knows where official docs on that topic are.
If MS didn't want you to use the convert command they wouldn't have supplied it. No requirement to format ntfs.
Converting to ntfs is a one way trip. You have to format to go back to fat32.
Your performance could be a result of cluster size. Or it could be completely unrelated to the file level change. A failing drive for example.
This thread is over 4.5 years old, no need to resurrect it.
(Oo;?(But it is very rare for such a old member as wanderer to have done it.)
How can one dig up such an ancient thread from the start?
I didn't even look at the date since it appeared to me to be a recent post.
How the heck did it even come up? I certainly didn't go looking for it.
So you weren't searching the forums and found this one ?
So you weren't searching the forums and found this one ?seems that way, a glitch in the database?
(Oo;?(What.)
If so, we shouldn't categorically accuse them. A bit ago too, fuzzy green one was accused, made a fool of by all and finally closed without giving any chances of excuse.
Surely I don't think one tries to search for answering, and dates are hardly noticed.
No one is accusing anyone of anything.
I'm locking this thread before it gets too off topic. Any problems with this, then don't hesitate to PM me.