Partition Magic
Back when DOS used FAT-12 and you had 32MB partition limits.
I still use Partition Magic to partition hundreds of GB of my many HDDs (totalling Terrabytes all, FAT32. no I'm not interested in NTFS, not yet), and including my recently bought 128GB SSD. whats the deal with you?
I use "Disk Management" in XP, Vista,
W7, W8 since I'm on Windows, and can partition to my heart's content (but if I have to merge/split, have to unallocate/allocate which is fine with me, copy disk first then partition and move, safer), so no need for Partition Magic (never sweat more than when I used Partition Magic on the fly and didn't know if the program would complete with data intact. If I remember correctly I did have a few that said can't continue).
I'm on NTFS for larger partition sizes
screen shot of Disk Management
http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm NTFS may be faster...
- smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- small file data embedded in dir level, avoids seek to data chain
- above factors make fragmentation less onerous than for FATxx
- 4k cluster size matches processor's natural paging size
...or slower...
- extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- small clusters may fragment data cluster chains
NTFS may be safer...
- transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)
...or more at risk...
- no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- transaction rollback does not help other causes of corruption
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)
NTFS may be more space-efficient...
- smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- may include data of small files within the directory level
- NTFS's bitmap structure is smaller than FAT32's dual FAT
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
...or less so...
- NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space
I would use NTFS where:
Users have professional-grade IT admin, including backup
Users need to hide data more than they need to salvage it
Applications require files over 4G in size
Hard drive exceeds the 137G barrier
But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...
Data can easily be recovered
File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
Malware can be scanned for and cleaned
...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.