yes U can, get a Win98 bootable.. format with it and run WinXP Pro Setup.

Windows XP's Disk Administrator won't let you create FAT32 partitions greater than about 40GB. I'm fairly certain this restriction applies to the initial disk configuration when installing XP too. According to Microsoft large FAT32 partitions aren't supported. Of course you can always use a partitioning program such as Partition Magic to create a FAT32 partition of pratically any size and you can then install XP on it fine. I think Microsoft have limited XP's ability to create larger FAT32 partitions so people are more likely to use a file system that encourages people to completely ditch older operating systems. It can sometimes be a pain in the arse trying to get data off an NTFS partition when you've booted into 98.

Of course NTFS has many advantages that make it the logical choice for use in XP, and it's the one I'd recommend. FAT32 does have less overhead, so you might see minor perfromance improvements, but I'd rather have NTFS's security and reliability.

.... I think he has NTFS and wants to switch to FAT32 .... there nor way to do with normal tools ... user 3rd party tools like Partition expert (www.acronis.de)
or boot with winXP CD during setup the format disk option can be usefull for u

Well yeah, actualy I want to have an option in the future when I format my PC and install XP to choose FAT32 if I want... depends how reliable it becomes for me I might need a good way of going FAT32 in the future as I format a few times a year.

Right now I want to try FAT32 and see if my PC handles it better than NTFS; if not, I'll stick with NTFS. Yeah, the XP CD does have a format feature, but the retail CD I have here only gives me an option along the lines of: "Format with NTFS /quick or /long". There is no FAT32 option in sight.

However I will give it a try by using a Win9x CD and putting FAT32 on there, then I will install Win XP and go from there, hopefully it will recognize that I have FAT32 ready to go.

Thanks a lot guys, thanks for the quick replys. :)

Windows XP's Disk Administrator won't let you create FAT32 partitions greater than about 40GB. I'm fairly certain this restriction applies to the initial disk configuration when installing XP too. According to Microsoft large FAT32 partitions aren't supported. Of course you can always use a partitioning program such as Partition Magic to create a FAT32 partition of pratically any size and you can then install XP on it fine. I think Microsoft have limited XP's ability to create larger FAT32 partitions so people are more likely to use a file system that encourages people to completely ditch older operating systems. It can sometimes be a pain in the arse trying to get data off an NTFS partition when you've booted into 98.

Of course NTFS has many advantages that make it the logical choice for use in XP, and it's the one I'd recommend. FAT32 does have less overhead, so you might see minor perfromance improvements, but I'd rather have NTFS's security and reliability.

and i would like to add whatever he said

no command line /w CD
start the normal setup as if u would install WinXP
during the setup u can format to NTFS or FAT32 ... after that simply abort the setup

ThunderChicken is right. Though it isn't a 40 GB limit but a 32 GB limit to format to FAT32 from WinXP. This limit was introduced in Win2K. FDISK should have a limit of about 512 GB when creating partitions and FORMAT a limit of about 128 GB when formatting a partition. So you should be able to format to FAT32 with FDISK/FORMAT.

I have to warn you though! FAT32 performance decreases with increasing partitionsize while NTFS performance hardly does! With larger partitionsizes NTFS performance is superior to FAT32 performance and this superiority increases with every MB. I don't really know where the break even point lies but it won't be more then a partitionsize of a few GB at most (probably much less). So formatting a partition of 32 GB or more with FAT32 will give a noticable performancedrop compared to NTFS. Maybe you should consider creating multiple partitions of smaller size.

Personally I would stick to NTFS. Maybe there are other ways around your problems.


Also read:
Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP

If NTFS is giving u problems ur drive must have bad sectors. NTFS goes wild if some sectors are bad Try running a chkdsk on startup.

if you HAVE to use FAT32 make sure to use a Windows ME start-up disk for partitioning and formatting in FDISK. The ME disk will let you make and format large partitions, all earlier versions (95, 98, 98SE) will limit partition size to less than 6GB...

if you HAVE to use FAT32 make sure to use a Windows ME start-up disk for partitioning and formatting in FDISK. The ME disk will let you make and format large partitions, all earlier versions (95, 98, 98SE) will limit partition size to less than 6GB...

No, the Win9X FDISK will limit to 512 GB, the WinME bootdisk will go over that.

Fdisk.exe Unable to Partition Drives Larger Than 512 Gigabytes

I youst to have my 60GB formatted in fat32 when i was running Win ME and then XP and I've gotta say that vegeta is right when he says the bigger the HD the slower FAT32 goes. If you looking for performance stick with the NTFS....besides what problems are you getting? NTFS is far more stable than FAT16/32 could ever be.

yes would be really interesting what is the problem rthat u want to downgrade ???

can't imagine that there is a real reason to do so ..

The only problem with NTFS is if you have to boot into DOS mode (and I do mean BOOT ... not drop to a DOS window from within Windoze), you won't be able to see or get to any of the NTFS partitions. The obvious solution is to convert the NTFS partition to FAT32 via Partition Magic or any other program that can handle that task.

As to performance issues, I have a pair of WD 120GB (8MB buffer) drives running in RAID 0 (striped), both formated in FAT32. They run like a raped ape and are used primarily for gaming. I have another single WD 120GB drive (also 8MB buffer) formated in NTFS that I use for video streaming (DVD ripping, video format conversion, watching movies from, etc.) and although there is an obvious performance difference in benchmarks, under real-world conditions you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between ANY of the drives. As to reliability, I've never had any problems with either format so I think it's a wash.

You (dzjepp) stated in your original post that you "think" your NTFS partition is giving you some trouble. What are you basing that on? What sort of symptoms are you seeing that would lead you to believe your NTFS partition has somehow become corrupt or is failing? When was the last time you defragged this partition? If you can provide additional information (clues) as to what kind of problem(s) you're having, we might better be able to analyse the situation and provide althernatives to reformatting or file system conversion.

Old Fart
aka AL

I can't see that not being able to access an NTFS via dos is a problem since you have programs out there like NTFSReader which allow you to read/copy/delete data on an NTFS drive while in dos.

I've made myself a tidy cd which boots into dos 6.22 with cd-rom drivers and loads this application so I can recover data from my NTFS drives if needed. This was made when i first switched to NTFS and I can honestly say that I've never needed to use it.

I can't see that not being able to access an NTFS via dos is a problem since you have programs out there like NTFSReader which allow you to read/copy/delete data on an NTFS drive while in dos.

Ok. I'll grant you that and there are other applications that you can run (like Partition Magic, Norton Ghost, etc.) that allow you to manage an NTFS partition. Is there anything out there that allows you to actually RUN an application that has been installed an NTFS partition in DOS mode? Not that I'm aware of.

Here's a method of managing a boot partition that's worked extremely well for me for many years ---

I tend to keep my boot partition stripped of all but the essentials. My installed applications/games/MP3s/movies/etc. and anything else I can get away with, I put on an entirely different drive or set of drives (RAID). My boot drive is a Seagate Cheetah 15K RPM UW SCSI drive. It's only 18GB but that's more than big enough for the OS and anything else that installation kits for other programs just can't live without having on C: (wherever they put them).

What I've done is created another hidden partition on the Cheetah that I use to back up all the data from the boot partition (the OS, etc.). The total amount of data on the boot partition generally stays at around 4GB or less (less is better) so I've limited the size of my hidden partition to around 5GB (just to be on the safe side).

About once a month (or as often as I make a major change like adding a new set of video/audio drivers or installing a new set of CODECs, maybe updating the OS with a service pack ... whatever) I'll make a backup of the entire boot partition (using Partition Magic Pro) to the hidden partition BEFORE I make those changes. That way I've always got a good, clean running backup of the OS to fall back on if anything goes wrong. If, after a few days of running the new configuration, I'm happy with it and it's still running as well as my backup was, I'll make another backup of the current system configuration. Having a total of nearly 400GB of storage helps a lot since I can make hidden partitions anywhere I like and keep multiple backups based on the date, configuration (fast, stripped down version for benchmarking or gaming, etc.) or whatever suits my needs.

If something DOES go wrong (which HAS happened in the past), all I have to do is delete the boot partition, copy the backup over to it (using Parition Magic Pro), resize it back to it's original size (about 13GB) and I'm back in business inside of 10 minutes. Over about the past 5 years or so I've used this method and have never installed anything I couldn't recover from and have always had at least one clean backup to fall back on. I've used both NTFS and FAT32 and it's made no difference whatsoever. Currently my boot partition is FAT32 but I could use Partition Magic Pro to convert it to NFTS if I wanted to. It makes no difference.

I also run a defragger (Diskeeper) once a week to make sure everything runs smooth and to minimize the effects of degragmented system files (which can be significant if left to their own devices). I schedule the defrag for 2:00AM Sunday night ... which is the only time I leave my system up and running all night. With 300+ watts of Peltiers alone, my electric bill is on the steep side.

I really don't think it matters WHICH file system you use as long as you take precautions against total or even partial failure. There is no substitute for a complete backup of the OS and whether you're burning to DVDs, CDs or to a hidden partition on another drive (or the same drive) doesn't matter either as long as you KEEP that backup up to date.

If you're just adding a new utility program that you can re-download and install at any time, don't worry about a backup. If you're installing a BETA of DirectX or a Windoze service pack, you better seriously consider what that might do to the stability of your system (not to mention your sanity) BEFORE you install it and WISH you'd made a backup (after the fact).

Hind sight is always 20/20 but if you use good judgement, you'll never regret making a backup.

Later,
AL

As to performance issues, I have a pair of WD 120GB (8MB buffer) drives running in RAID 0 (striped), both formated in FAT32. They run like a raped ape and are used primarily for gaming. I have another single WD 120GB drive (also 8MB buffer) formated in NTFS that I use for video streaming (DVD ripping, video format conversion, watching movies from, etc.) and although there is an obvious performance difference in benchmarks, under real-world conditions you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between ANY of the drives. As to reliability, I've never had any problems with either format so I think it's a wash.

Do you mean there hardly is a performance difference between your FAT32 RAID array and a single NTFS drive? A RAID array should theoretically be twice as fast as a single drive with the same performance...

Like FAT and FAT32, NTFS uses clusters to store data files; however, the size of the clusters is not dependent on the size of the disk or partition. A cluster size as small as 512 bytes can be specified, regardless of whether a partition is 500 MB or 5 GB. Using small clusters not only reduces the amount of wasted disk space, but also reduces file fragmentation, a condition where files are broken up over many noncontiguous clusters, resulting in slower file access. Because of its ability to use small clusters, NTFS provides good performance on large drives.

If you want to know the ins and outs of FAT32 vs. NTFS performance under WinXP read:
NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
(I posted this link in one of my previous posts also)

BTW, I do not recommend FAT32 to NTFS conversion. For full NTFS benefits I recommend a format.

Is there anything out there that allows you to actually RUN an application that has been installed an NTFS partition in DOS mode? Not that I'm aware of.

NTFSDOS Professional mounts your NTFS volumes and gives them drive letters, so you can run applications and use files on NTFS volumes transparently. NTFSDOS Professional is small enough to run from a MS-DOS boot diskette so you can even access NTFS volumes on a system where Windows NT/2000/XP isn´t installed or able to boot. This makes it ideal for repairing corrupt files or configuration problems that prevent a Windows NT/2000/XP system from booting.

Sysinternals NTFSDOS Professional (free version is read-only)

NTFSDOS.EXE is a read-only network file system driver for DOS/Windows that is able to recognize and mount NTFS drives for transparent access. It makes NTFS drives appear indistinguishable from standard FAT drives, providing the ability to navigate, view and execute programs on them from DOS or from Windows, including from the Windows 3.1 File Manager and Windows 95 Explorer.

Sysinternals NTFSDOS

I do have to say you have a nice HDD setup. I also like how you handle your drives for disaster recovery.

Do you mean there hardly is a performance difference between your FAT32 RAID array and a single NTFS drive? A RAID array should theoretically be twice as fast as a single drive with the same performance...

What I was elluding to was the "real-world" performance of drives in general. Sure ... I can run benchmarks on the drives and obviously the RAID set is going to smoke the single drive. However, running standard applications from those drives (utilities, programs I use on a daily basis, etc.) you're not going to see or feel (seat of the pants kind of stuff) any real difference in performance.

NTFS does a lot going for it but it's most important "feature" is it's ability to encrypt files and folders to protect sensitive data. Other than private emails, I don't really have anything on my system I'd consider "sensitive data". If I was running a server with a database that contained customer information or proprietary company documents ... then sure. I'd be paranoid about access to those files and would want THE best solution to serve up those documents (along with the security aspects of NTFS/NTFS5). THAT is what NTFS was created for. Not for running games, word processors or browsers from.

As to FAT32 to NTFS conversion, Microsoft themselves make a utility called "convert" that allows you to convert a FAT32 partition to NTFS. There isn't anything unsafe about the process and there is no data loss. A reformat is not necessary ... which is why other software vendors (such as Power Quest) have incorporated the same feature into their products.

If anyone wants ALL the nuts and bolts information on NTFS and is curious what the real differences are between it and FAT, FAT32 and NTFS5, here's the place to look - http://www.ntfs.com/

Thanks to whoever posted the information on NTFSDOS Professional. I hadn't heard of that application before, so today I learned something (not easy for an old dog like me)!! :-)

AL

yes thats true ... my solution to that is that I have one FAT 32 drive ...

C - NTFS win, progs and so on ...
D - FAT storage for all files like MP3, installations, BIOS files and so on all stuff with low disk usage
E - games and other big stuff

so if I really need something in DOS I can get it there ... but as he said ... I nearly never use this exept BIOS updates ...
and since there is True Image and I don't need ghost anymore BIOS Updates are the only reason

Hi guys, I wanted to say thanks for all these great responses. I meant to reply earlier but I forgot, but the main reason I was having problems was with Diskeeper 7.0SE (and up?) You see, after I used this program to defragment my PC, after a while I would get errors that I need to do a CHKDSK /P and sometimes /R.

I saw a post on a different board where a user said the newer versions of Diskeeper where causing him problems. So what I did, I completely unistalled any Diskeeper app installed on my system. I believe it was Diskeeper 7.0SE Professional Build 3.xx

I went back to the original defragger that comes built-in with Windows XP. Yes, that defragger IS Diskeeper, but it's essentialy an old version that I found recently works very flawlessly. It is not as fast as 7.0SE, but it dosen't matter, it is NOT corrupting my HD anymore!

Think twice about using Diskeeper 7.0SE+ - you might run into problems as well... in this case, using newer software is not the best choice (at least not for me).