[Koralatov]

I'm probably posting this in the wrong forum (sorry if I am), but I wasn't sure where exactly to post it.

Anyway, I have a couple of external USB2 hard-disks formatted to FAT32 (so I can read from/write to in both Windows and OSX for storing media. I'm seriously considering a move over to a Mac-exclusive set-up. My question is: would there be any real performance and/or benefit in reformatting my hard-disks to HFS+, or is it largely pointless? As it stands, the FAT32 performs just fine, so unless there would be a concrete benefit in changing to HFS+, I won't bother.

[richwig83]

I had a similar conundrum. I did reformat my lacie drive to HFS and i now wish i had not, as i occasionally have wanted to connect my drive to a windows laptop. Im sure ppl will say that HFS is better i would stick with FAT32... if it aint broke......

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

If you want to store files more than 4 GB then move to HFS+, if not stay with FAT.

[JKT]

The performance of read/write to HFS+ is significantly faster than to FAT32 on a Mac. If you truly will never need Windows compatibility, HFS+ is the better format purely because of this reason alone.

[reader50]

If you ever need to repair an external drive, things get complicated with FAT. Disk Utility will do basic repairs to FAT, but the serious utilities (DiskWarrior, TTP) will not.

How about reformatting the bigger USB drive to HFS+, and keep the more important files there. Leave the smaller on FAT for sharing compatibility.

[andreas_g4]

Or just partition the drive into two partitions, one small in FAT32 for sharing files and one big in HFS+. HFS+ is really faster a great deal.

[Curiosity]

HFS+ make more efficient use of storage space than FAT32 does if you have partitions 8 GB or larger. The HFS+ cluster size remains at 4 KB, whereas with FAT32, for partitions 8 GB or more, the cluster size doubles to 8K, for 16 GB or more, cluster size doubles again, and so on.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

If you want to store files more than 4 GB then move to HFS+, if not stay with FAT.

That's incorrect, Microsoft imposed an artificial limit on the size of FAT drives so you would have to choose NTFS. That doesn't mean XP (or Vista) cannot read FAT that's greater then 3 or 4GB.

Of course the cluster size becomes increasingly inefficient if you do opt for a FAT format on a large drive.

I'd create a small (1 or 2 gb) partition for FAT32 and then format the remainder as HFS+

[mpancha]

Technically, HFS+ is a better option. But, may not be the best suited for your needs.

But, if you want to switch between OSes (windows/OS X/etc) then you want to go with Fat or Fat32.

Like others have suggested though, if compatibility is a necessity, but not frequently, then make a Fat32 partition that's small, and use HFS+ on the other larger partition.

[dice]

One of my external drives is HFS+/FAT32. I have a FAT32 partition for access from PCs. My HFS+ partition is 100GB and my FAT32 partition is 200GB. It works great.

I dunno what the story is with Intel macs and formatting drives but with my G4 Mini I had to jump through quite a few hoops to get HFS+ and FAT32 on the same drive. My FAT32 partition is accessible from both OSX and Windows.

See here for more info:
Create HFS+ and FAT32 partitions on one external drive.

[Koralatov]

Everyone: thanks for your input. Having given it some consideration, I've decided to take the plunge and make the drives HFS+. I have a mini-HD kicking around somewhere (120GB, formatted FAT32) which I'll keep in case I need to move files to and from my Windows machine.

Again, your input is much appreciated!