Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Windows 2000 Pro on a FAT32 partition


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:11:29 PM

Posted 07 October 2005 - 05:38 PM

I am going to install W2k on a Dell GX1p/500mhz/256RAM. I also want to dual boot a live Linux( Several to be exact ). Windows 2000 give the choice of FAT or NTFS when the install starts. I never bothered to look into it, but does it make a difference? The live Linux needs a FAT partition to install on the hard drive. Go figure. All my other W2K boxes are NTFS.
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 River_Rat

River_Rat

  • Members
  • 773 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SW Oklahoma - USA
  • Local time:12:29 AM

Posted 07 October 2005 - 10:44 PM

Since you are creating a dual boot with Linux the the FAT file system will might make it easier to access. I am not real sure about it but will probably still have to do some programing to mount the other drive to view files.

Maybe this will help:
http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/linux/explore2fs.htm

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=vi...T32&qt_s=Search

#3 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:11:29 PM

Posted 07 October 2005 - 11:49 PM

It creates a folder(according to the MAN FILES) and runs from that. It specifly states FAT.
I was concerned about W2k with FAT32 instead of NTSF format.
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#4 dc3

dc3

    Bleeping Treehugger


  • Members
  • 30,690 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sierra Foothills of Northern Ca.
  • Local time:10:29 PM

Posted 08 October 2005 - 01:20 AM

I'm not sure this will help, but it is informative.

`http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cook/Cluster.htm

Family and loved ones will always be a priority in my daily life.  You never know when one will leave you.

 

 

 

 


#5 keystrokes

keystrokes

  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:29 AM

Posted 08 October 2005 - 11:50 AM

Are you talking abut FAT or FAT32. It shouldn't really make that much of a difference. NTFS was created for better file security and some other things.

#6 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:11:29 PM

Posted 08 October 2005 - 09:05 PM

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?



Edit:correct the first line. It should read FAT32 instead of FAT. Thank you Enthusiast.

Edited by acklan, 05 November 2005 - 01:21 AM.

"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#7 Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 5,898 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • Local time:12:29 AM

Posted 05 November 2005 - 01:15 AM

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)

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.


#8 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:11:29 PM

Posted 05 November 2005 - 01:18 AM

You are so right. Thank you for catching my error. It should be a FAT32 partition.
Thank you Enthusiast.
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users