NTFS vs FAT32

[iparout]

I was wondering :

If I capture a video in NTGS file system (Win2000), turn it into Divx or whatever format and then burn it on CD, will I be able to watch the video in a PC that runs under winME (FAT32) -and vice versa-, or is this gonna be impossible because of the different file system ?

Thx in advance.

[Dr Mordrid]

The CD will have its own filesystem independent of that used to create the file, so the answer is a qualified yes.

The CD's filesystem can be set up in the burning software. There are several choices including "ISO". This is pretty much a universal format that should be readable on any Windows OS.

Just remember: the target computer has to have the codec you're using installed or it still won't play. The most universal codec IMHO is MPEG-1.

My 2 cents:

Divx is a poor hack of a lousy implementation of MPEG-4 by Microsoft. I'd wait for Quicktime's MPEG-4 before using that format for anything as it'll be the official version. Otherwise I'd use either MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 using VBR.

I don't see anything in the latest implementations of DivX or Windows Media8 to change that opinion.

Dr. Mordrid

[TnT]

I'd have to disagree with you, Doc, about the new DivX 4, which is not a hack. It is still only in beta, but the quality is already a bit better than the DivX 3.11. So later releases should improve quality even more, at least I hope, and with 2-pass VBR the file sizes are very nice too. Also Quicktime may have excellent quality, but the software is horrendous - only a step above RealPlayer IMO.

[Dr Mordrid]

I tried DivX4 and was unimpressed. It's unstable and still has quality problems beyond those of WM8, and I'm no fan of that either.

Get used to Quicktime. It's the official platform for MPEG-4 in the new specs.

Dr. Mordrid

[iparout]

Thank all of you for your replies.

Well, I'm gonna suggest something which probably can't be done but I wanna know why...

What if you have a dual boot system. Say, hard drive c:\ is FAT 32 with Win98 installed whereas drive d:\ is NTFS with win2000 installed. You boot on win98 where the Marvel G400 has full functionality and you start capturing at MJPEG, selecting drive d:\ (NTFS) as the drive to save the iutput file.

Isn't this gonna beat the 4GB filesize limit of Win9x ?

Most propably this canniot happen, otherwise someone else would have thought it before, but please let me know why it can't happen..

[Indiana]

Win98 has no NTFS supprot built-in, so you can't even access your D: with it.
There's a tool available that enables NTFS support in Win98, but the free version only enables reading - for writing capability (which is what you'd need) you have to buy it - and then why not buy a WinTV instead which is working fine in Win2k....

Besides I don't know if this would defeat the 4GB limit as this might be due to the OS and not only due to the used filesystem.

[iparout]

The filesize limit has to do ONLY with the file system not the operating system.

BTW, what's this little programme's name that gives you NTFS support in Win98 ?

[Dr Mordrid]

The tool under discussion is Winternals NTFS for Win9x filesystem.

It uses custom drivers plus some files copied from the Win2K installation to enable NTFS support in Win9x.

While it can allow you to read/write to NTFS volumes there are limitations under Win9x that one has to bear in mind;

1. you can only reliably access files up to 4 gigs, which IS an operating system limitation.

2. because of the extra software loading it's slower than a normal NTFS access from Win2K. Reads are not affected as much as writes, however.

Dr. Mordrid

[Indiana]

I'm dualbooting Win98 and 2k and have the free version of the NTFS tool installed - I can at least read VERY large files with this setup (a >30GB MJPEG capture could be played back).
I'm just not sure about saving / creating such large files since I never had the full-version of the NTFS tool (and I don't need it, as said the Hauppauge works just fine in Win2k, which is the much better OS anyway).
Besides I found FAT32 to be somewhat faster than NTFS, but the ability for >2/4GB files does more than compensate for this - and with a RAID array you should have more than the needed HD-bandwidth.

[iparout]

Well, in a few words, you can't use that programme to circumvent the 4 GB limit using the way I proposed in my previous posts, right ?