NTFS or Fat32 on Win2k MAME Machine?

[ArcadeFX]

I am not going to be running any other favors of windows or dual booting.  Does MAME run better on one of the other?

[SirPoonga]

ntfs in win2k is probably better.  My guess...  

[JMDickson]

The tradeoff usually is a result of cluster size.  The way MAME uses files, it will not gain anything from NTFS features.  In fact it loads the data once, and is done with it, so you won't see much if any difference.  The size of the partition will probably be the best guide.  

If you 'need' to collect every MAME rom, you will end up with a lot of wasted space if you have a large partition.  NTFS can help this a little if you force small cluster size, but this will also slow performance a little.

[ArcadeFX]

Well, I just went with Fat32 but my drive is a full 38GB.  I should probably convert this to NTFS just for that reason.

I can do this right from Win2k right?  I am pretty sure I did this once before but can't remember.

[SirPoonga]

Though fat32 couldn;t handle over 32gigs.

Yeah, in your computer manager you can change it

[Lilwolf]

Win32 was nice since you could have a win98 partition talking to it.

But NTFS is faster, nicer, more stable, and has a great feature of you specifying if a directory as compressed (you can run everything from it, but it will compress/decompress them for use)

But I use win32 since I have a 98 boot partition also

[Lilwolf]

Bigger question.  

WHY IN THE 1@#% ARE YOU USING WIN2K?

It really sucks for mame.  Go with XP or 98.  You will probably double your fps!

[ArcadeFX]

I don't have a copy of win98 but I do have one of XP.  Any problems with running most PC games on XP?  Castle Wolf, NFL Blitz are two that I will be installing.

[Blake]

Really??  I'm using Win2k on my machine for the stability and I haven't noticed any FPS problems at all.  But I am thinking about going back to Win98 due to DOS compatability problems - can't run Dragon's Lair CD-ROM version or Golden Tee Golf.  And I don't really see the need to spend $100 for XP to play them...

Bigger question.

[Lilwolf]

I have a 800mhz athlon at the office running a decent video card.  I can't have a single option (triple buffer, scan lines, or anything) to get them to run.

At home with a 1ghz athlon (sure a little faster) I can get almost every game to run with every option on.

NT/2000 was never considered a game system at all and wasn't designed for it.  XP was really designed to be good for both developent and game playing

[ArcadeFX]

Going with 98 as soon as I can find a copy.  Thanks.

[pink]

lilwolf - if you have a huge difference between frame rates between 2k and xp, the prob is your machine or your config on the 2k machine, not win2k itself.

As for ntfs/fat32, you wont notice a performance difference, the advantage of sticking with win32 is you can access the partition from a 98 machine and troubleshooting / recovery is a lot easier if you wind up having a system crash.  (However the likelyhood of that is less with ntfs, so its a 6 - 1/2 dozen thing)

- pink

[Lilwolf]

my systems are 98 and 2000.  And I've seen a HUGE difference between games..

but I can also say this.  EVERY development system I've ran runs SO MUCH better on 2000 on similar hardware.  I really believe that it's the DX implementation on 2000 sucks... and 98 sucks for everything else

[Nightmare03]

*bump*  

[Silver]

Its rarely straightforward - as it will depend on your system components. For example, some video cards have drivers with completely different performance in 98/2k/XP - even for quite basic functions (i.e. 2D) that mame uses. Gaming cards can sometimes have lacklustre 2k drivers as driver developers assume it is less important.

It can be more complicated though - win98 allows programs much more direct access to hardware (which is faster) than 2k/xp which keep tighter reigns on programs to reduce crashes. This extra layer can sometimes rely on drivers by the likes of SIS, INTEL, ALI or VIA depending on the chipset on a motherboard and performance can vary. Some chipsets had horrendous performance under a different OS (eg early VIA drivers) - and even if updated drivers improve things people often miss getting them as they are not graphics drivers and they don't realise to look for them.

Also, 2k/xp are definately more resource (memory/cpu) hungry than 98 - so for example someone with 64mb or 128mb of ram may find that performance in 98 is great, but crippled when using 2k on the same pc. However - if they had 512mb, they may find performance extremely similar between 2k/98 - and thus choose 2k for stability.

To get back to the original post question - if you are worried about this simply because of mame performance, don't be. Otherwise its a size of HD/other features type of question.

(Apologies for some glaring technical simplifications to try and get a point across! )

[GroovyTuesdaY]

Generally speaking, windows XP is a much better and more stable platform then 98 or millenium.   Even though i miss palying some older games like star wars ROGUE SQUADRON, i have really seen not one single benefit to using anything other than windows XP.  Its memory managing is tons better and i rarely IF EVER have it just crash for no reason.   Unless your using your rig in a DOS mode for your
 cabinet, then go with windows xp.  I'm sure there are still  ways to use mam32 without worrying about people monkeying with stuff if you have others play on your setup.  Just check in these forums some advice from others who have tried different front ends and the like.
Dos drivers are getting harder and hard to find also and windows 98 if im not mistaken is not even supported by microsoft anymore, so its a forgone conclusion really.......its time to let the old operating system die.    lol

groovY~