The linux (live linux) I want to install needs to install to a windows FAT partition. It places it's self in 4 folders in windows and runs from that, or in a RAM disk. I just need to know if Windows 2000 is going to suffer from not having a NTFS partiton. What will I be giving up using FAT32 vs NTSF?
There is a difference between Fat16 and Fat32. Make sure what it is that you need for Linux. (probably Fat16)
The FAT16 file system was introduced way back with MS–DOS in 1981, and it's showing its age. It was designed originally to handle files on a floppy drive, and has had minor modifications over the years so it can handle hard disks, and even file names longer than the original limitation of 8.3 characters, but it's still the lowest common denominator. The biggest advantage of FAT16 is that it is compatible across a wide variety of operating systems, including Windows 95/98/Me, OS/2, Linux, and some versions of UNIX. The biggest problem of FAT16 is that it has a fixed maximum number of clusters per partition, so as hard disks get bigger and bigger, the size of each cluster has to get larger. In a 2–GB partition, each cluster is 32 kilobytes, meaning that even the smallest file on the partition will take up 32 KB of space. FAT16 also doesn't support compression, encryption, or advanced security using access control lists.
NTFS vs. FAT: Which Is Right for You?http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/s..._october01.mspx
Why not install Linux on a second drive or partition as a dual boot system and use NTFS for XP?
Edited by Enthusiast, 05 November 2005 - 01:19 AM.