PC hardware: Fat 32 vs. NTFS
Fat 32 vs. NTFS
by skippyd333 - 9/17/04 3:18 AMIt is my understanding that in order to use fat32 your drive or partition can not be bigger than 32gigs?
Also, it is my understanding that if you use NTFS you cannot have a dual boot? Is this correct? Skip
Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS
by R. Proffitt
- 9/17/04 3:59 AM
In reply to: Fat 32 vs. NTFS by skippyd333
"It is my understanding that in order to use fat32 your drive or partition can not be bigger than 32gigs?"
Untrue. But first, you posted in the HARDWARE FORUM and that's a SOFTWARE ISSUE!
To your issue, I used a Windows 98se boot disk to create a fat32 volume just recently because... the MP3 hard disk player was over 32GB and the player only understood FAT32.
"Also, it is my understanding that if you use NTFS you cannot have a dual boot? Is this correct? Skip"
That's untrue. I have a PC here with Windows 2000. It was set up all NTFS. I added another drive and then installed Linux on the other drive. I have a dual boot. Maybe you needed to tell what OS you needed to dual boot because.... if it was windows 98, then you couldn't run into the issue because 98 wouldn't install or create the NTFS volume.
Bob
Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS
by skippyd333 - 9/17/04 7:17 AM In reply to: Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS by R. Proffitt
Thanks for your input. Your a great help. I thought I was in the right forum because I was talking about a harddrive issue. Isn't that hardware and not software? skip
Fat 32 vs. NTFS, dual boot and such is... software.
by R. Proffitt - 9/17/04 7:30 AM
In reply to: Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS by skippyd333
But I hope my short explanation helped.
If you want to install a dual boot, the rules are all over the map, but for windows read...
http://www.google.com/search?&q=site%3Amicrosoft.com+dual+boot
And after all that... still a software issue.
Bob
Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS, dual boot and such is... software.
by skippyd333 - 9/17/04 8:13 AM In reply to: Fat 32 vs. NTFS, dual boot and such is... software. by R. Proffitt
I have a dual boot now. Again I partitioned my hd in half and put xp on both sides one for me and one for my wife. that way I can play and not screw up my wifes side if i try something new that screws things up. I save all my wanted stuff on my wifes drive of course. so I don't lose anything I want to keep. I have become an expert at formatting and reloading windows. all windows. I learn everything the hardway. Now I'm learning to edit and tweak my registry. so far I only have had to reinstall once trying to change the name of my start button. Its a bit tricky. skip
Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS, dual boot and such is... software.
by Mark5019 - 9/17/04 10:08 AM In reply to: Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS, dual boot and such is... software. by skippyd3331 question you put xp on sep partion did u use 2 keys?
as i understand xp( at times i dont) after 28 days will need to activate it
Oh, you could help me!
by dwdawson - 8/28/06 9:09 PM In reply to: Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS, dual boot and such is... software. by skippyd333I am a musician who needs to run my music software (recording and Karaoke ) on a different version of Windows XP. I want to keep all my home software on my local disk C: and the "music" version of XP and my music software on an external firewire drive. I have a partiton formatted and ready, but recieved an error when I wanted to install it. It says "Your computers setup program cannot install XP on this HD. This is not necessarily an error..blah blah, it may need special software" or something like that. I cannot afford to have the version of XP get polluted by everything and have crashes during karaok gigs or while I am recording a song. Please help me out. This is a brand new dual processor HP laptop and I can configure anyway I want.
Thanks!
XP doesn't install to externals...
by linkit - 8/28/06 10:14 PM In reply to: Oh, you could help me! by dwdawson...except maybe to certain external SATA drives that connect to internal SATA controllers.
I found that our
by dwdawson - 8/29/06 9:00 AM In reply to: XP doesn't install to externals... by linkitI cannot even boot to a firewire drive in the bios, but I can boot to a USB drive, which I found dumb.
I will partition magic the internal thatnks
Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS
by cgsmithjr - 9/17/04 10:38 AM In reply to: Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS by R. Proffitt
Bob,
Did you happen to use WinXP to mount the resulting FAT32 partition? If so, you may want to consider that WinXP can mount FAT32 volumes larger than 32GB if they were created by another OS. The following Microsoft Knowledge Base article discusses this:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp
Chauncey
Yes. XP mounts the 40 GB FAT32 just fine.
by R. Proffitt - 9/17/04 10:48 AM
In reply to: Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS by cgsmithjr
Here's why I needed it. I have one of those Vosonic portable media readers so I don't lug around a laptop to download a memory card from the camera to the laptop or such. Here's one I own -> http://www.vosonic.co.uk/vp300.html
Some nice features is that it plays MP3s (which I haven't used...) and that it works on USB 1.1 as well as USB 2.0.
I found a firesale on a 40GB drive so that's why it got such a large drive. Nothing like doing such things to be able to answer some questions.
To prepare the drive, I used my 3.5 inch to notebook drive adapter, booted up a Win98se diskette and prepared the drive prior to adding it to the VP300.
Hope this helps,
Bob
Re: Yes. XP mounts the 40 GB FAT32 just fine.
by cgsmithjr - 9/17/04 12:02 PM In reply to: Yes. XP mounts the 40 GB FAT32 just fine. by R. Proffitt
Cool device, I want one! I was hoping to use it as an MP3 Player in my car, but with such short battery life I would have to plug into my cigarette lighter adapter. Might as well buy a new radio. I still want one though. Will let you know if I take the plunge. Seems to work well as storage device.
Chauncey
Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS
by cgsmithjr - 9/17/04 10:16 AM In reply to: Fat 32 vs. NTFS by skippyd333Skip,
Apparently, you're right regarding size restrictions for FAT. However, it seems it is possible to have a dual boot system using NTFS in a certain and inflexible configuration.
The following Microsoft Knowledge Base Article, discusses size limits in FAT and NTFS:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp
The following Microsoft Knowledge Base Articles discuss the minutiae of dual booting with NTFS and FAT:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;243896
Chauncey
Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS
by skippyd333 - 9/17/04 12:09 PM In reply to: Re: Fat 32 vs. NTFS by cgsmithjrThanks for your input. I knew I read about this somewhere skip
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
