• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Converting a drive from NTFS to Fat32

Muse

Muse

Lifer
I don't see that this is possible in a simple way. Partition Magic 7.0, in any case, doesn't appear to support this.

I just did a very major reconfiguration of my main PC, replacing all three HDs with three new ones, and I moved some stuff around. I made a decision that I now regret - the drive which has my applications and live data is NTFS. This is a problem because I multiboot and my Win98SE won't be able to see the data. I realized this before I did it, but having done it I regret my Win98SE not seeing that data more than I anticipated.

I've decided that I'll convert the drive to Fat32 one way or another. However, I decided to post here because I'm afraid I'll encounter a big problem. The technique I envision is to copy all the data on the NTFS drive (I mean everything on the drive) to another drive, reformat the NTFS drive as a Fat32 drive and copy it all back.

Of course, my applications being on this drive, I'm worried about a glitch. Of course, I wouldn't have these applications open at the time! I have Ghost 2001 and Ghost 2003. Should I do the copying with Ghost? Inasmuch as Ghost would be working from DOS, that would keep any applications from being open during the process.

So, the question is this: Would my Windows 2000 SP4 have any kind of problem with the applications suddenly being on a Fat32 drive instead of the current NTFS drive? Of course, the drive letter would remain the same. I really don't want to have to go back to square one where I was a couple of days ago.

One issue that I have taken care of is moving the data with > 4 GB files to a different NTFS partition (it's on my 3rd drive). I know that a Fat32 drive won't accommodate those files.

Thanks for any help with this.
 
OK. Nobody knows, I guess. I'll just try it and see if it seems to work. If it doesn't, I'll reconvert the partition to NTFS and Ghost back the info. Or, I could start from scratch if that seems better. I'll post back the results.

Well, I haven't done it yet. If someone has a better idea, please post here. Meantime, I'll Ghost the NTFS partition preparing for the described conversion.

Edit: Here's an online resource on converting NTFS to Fat32. It explains why it's tough. It's not so extensive. I'm reading it now.

Edit2: Oh, boy. This guy says you can't format a partition greater than 32 GB as Fat32. Is that true??? Gee, I wonder where he got that. I have my 160 GB drive formatted Fat32... 😕

Edit3: Here's a forum-like discussion of the topic.
 
Edit2: Oh, boy. This guy says you can't format a partition greater than 32 GB as Fat32. Is that true??? Gee, I wonder where he got that. I have my 160 GB drive formatted Fat32... 😕
Click to expand...

You can, just not with the tools built into Windows. 160gb fat32 volume? Wow, your brave.

Bill
 
I wouldn't suggest useing FAT32 unless your drive is smaller than 32 Gb (thats not a random number) and you want to use multiple OS's at once. Whenever you convert from one file system to another without a clean format there is the risk of glitches and/or data loss. Could you possibly put the driver onto another computer to transfer the files, until your drives are all set up?
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Edit2: Oh, boy. This guy says you can't format a partition greater than 32 GB as Fat32. Is that true??? Gee, I wonder where he got that. I have my 160 GB drive formatted Fat32... 😕
Click to expand...

You can, just not with the tools built into Windows. 160gb fat32 volume? Wow, your brave.

Bill
Click to expand...

Maybe. It's better to be brave than cowardly, I figure. Tryin' not to do something stupid. I'm not certain I'm going to go through with this. That's why I'm lookin' for knowledgable feedback before I go further. I did Ghost the NTFS partition. Now I figure I have to copy all the data to another partition, reformat the NTFS partition to Fat32 and then copy the data back and then test. Not sure it's worth it. Just the chance of introducing some showstopper gives me pause, even though I can Ghost things back to the way they were. Not sure it's worth the trouble and the gamble. Anyway, here's a thread. Top post is the meaty one and the guy says he likes using Fat32 over NTFS and he explains why. The thread degenerates to a considerable extent into something of a free-for-all when people can't agree on the wisdom of this, one of his more minor points.
 
Anyway, here's a thread. Top post is the meaty one and the guy says he likes using Fat32 over NTFS and he explains why. The thread degenerates to a considerable extent into something of a free-for-all when people can't agree on the wisdom of this, one of his more minor points.
Click to expand...

Anybody who's 2K/XP installation tips include "Thou shalt not use NTFS partitions" loses all credibility with me. I spent a long time dealing with Microsoft file systems (Norton Disk Doctor, Norton Speed Disk, Norton Unerase, etc). My professional advice is FAT (12/16/32) sucks.

It's simply not very fault tolerant. It's too easy for some error (such as the power going out to the system why while the system is being updated) to corrupt the entire file system. It does not scale well to todays drive sizes (MS isn't trying to be the bad guy here limiting their tools to formatting to 32gig, they know the realistic limits of the FAT32 file system).

NTFS isn't neccesarily the best file system we've ever developed, but it's actually pretty darn good. It's certainly the best available on the Windows platform. It's MUCH more recoverable in case of file system damage.

The only reason left I see to use FAT is for the dual boot cases (which you mentioned). But I'd certainly use a smaller partition and think thru how much data I really need to share between the OS's.

(And without trying to start another thread here, why do you need to dual boot?)

Bill
 
(And without trying to start another thread here, why do you need to dual boot?)

Bill
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to explain your preference for NTFS over FAT(x). I'm not knowledgable, I have to admit this in spades. I don't have a degree in CS, but I have spent a lot of time working with computers and built 3 from scratch. I've been extremely fortunate so far, I figure. In fact, I'd say I've been charmed. I've had probably double figures in HDs and never had one fail. That's luck for you in the PC world. Partly, it's because I upgrade my HDs before they fail.

I did have one HD simply get so currupt that it was unusable and I had to scramble to save my data, but I managed to do so before the whole file system went belly up.

I'm dual booting for a few reasons:

1. I have one application that works on Windows 98 only, and I really want to use it: Protools free. I want to use it to train for the professional version that's used by the radio station I work at. I can train myself at home. At the station, it's relatively tough to get a chance to use it.

2. I can troubleshoot and test applications and/or data. If there are issues, I can often sort them out by trying stuff out on an alternate OS. In fact, I also set aside a partition (6 GB) for a separate additional Windows 2000 install for just this purpose.

In fact, I don't expect to spend much time using the Win98SE partition. I was a year between installs of Windows 2000, and there were long stretches when I didn't use Win98SE at all. Because of Protools Free, I expect to use it at least occasionally this time around. In fact, I don't expect to need access to all the data I use with Win2000. I have at least 1/2 a mind to skip this and just put what I know I'll need in Win98Se out there where it can see it and be done with this. I'm all ready to test my theory, but hey, why even bother? For what? And if what you say is true, and I'm taking a chance having that drive Fat32, I should just leave it NTFS. In fact, if that's the case, I should convert my 160 GB drive from Fat32 to NTFS!

 
I spent some time researching the issue and decided on a sort of compromise solution. I won't convert my data drive to Fat32, so I'll do 95+% of my computing with NTFS exclusively (OS, apps and data). I'll back up the data I may want to use with Win98 at some point to a Fat32 partition. I won't have access to the latest data from Win98, but that's not a big problem. Assuming I back up weekly or so, it will be reasonably up to date for my purposes. I won't be able to modify the data and have it persist, or I won't want to go to the trouble in most instances, but I can live with that. To that effect, I'll partition my 160 GB drive into two partitions:

32 GB Fat32 (said backup of data and data area for Win98 use)
The rest NTFS

I looked into the issues without getting terribly into it. Most of the advantages to using NTFS aren't going to benefit me and they won't benefit most home users: security, file rights, file-compression, encryption/decryption on the fly, etc. There are a couple of features that I will benefit from:

1. Apparently, NTFS is a lot better at ensuring the integrity of your data. It appears to check for bad clusters and moves data automatically in the event of bad clusters.

2. NTFS keeps records of file changes. In the event of a crash, it can and will automatically roll back to known acceptable file states. This is probably the most useful feature for me. I seem to get frequent crashes, particarly (I suppose) as my Win2000 installation ages and approaches the stage where I'm thinking that it's time for a fresh install. When Fat32 partitions are in use, you usually get a drive scan and often see directories named things like File0001.chk or some such thing. I can hit the reset button in Win2000 and the system boots right back up with no scanning necessary if my data/apps/OS are all on NTFS partition.

One thing I am curious about is the assertion that if you Ghost an NTFS partition and then restore from the Ghost image file, the restore automatically defrags the partition. I find this a bit hard to believe. Anyone?
 
2. NTFS keeps records of file changes. In the event of a crash, it can and will automatically roll back to known acceptable file states. This is probably the most useful feature for me. I seem to get frequent crashes, particarly (I suppose) as my Win2000 installation ages and approaches the stage where I'm thinking that it's time for a fresh install. When Fat32 partitions are in use, you usually get a drive scan and often see directories named things like File0001.chk or some such thing. I can hit the reset button in Win2000 and the system boots right back up with no scanning necessary if my data/apps/OS are all on NTFS partition.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, NTFS gaurentees the file system structure to be intact after a crash/rollback. That doesn't mean that your data (say a document you were working on) will be left in a usable state. It means the file system itself won't be corrupt and additional changes to the file system won't make the situation worse.

One thing I am curious about is the assertion that if you Ghost an NTFS partition and then restore from the Ghost image file, the restore automatically defrags the partition. I find this a bit hard to believe. Anyone?
Click to expand...

Yep, as Ghost writes the files out in order as it lays them down (e.g. it doesn't record the original sector layout).

Bill
 
you can buy software to allow win98 to read NTFS, this is what i would do if you cannot give up windows 98 for whatever reason. But always use NTFS, if only for its journaling features.
 
"Just to clarify, NTFS gaurentees the file system structure to be intact after a crash/rollback. That doesn't mean that your data (say a document you were working on) will be left in a usable state. It means the file system itself won't be corrupt and additional changes to the file system won't make the situation worse."

I guess I've been lucky, then. I think it's my habit of saving my files VERY frequently. Once burned twice shy, twice burned, shame on me! 🙂
 
I setup my latest computer with a Segate SATA 160gb and NTFS (three partitions). After installing everything, I found out neither of my DVD-ram drives worked correctly with NTFS. Not good....much of my back-up data is on DVD-ram.

So I used Parition Magic 7.0 (with update patch) to convert to fat32. No problems at all...now everything works just fine. When I added a second 160gb drive, I formatted it fat 32. I'm satisfied with the setup...P-Magic can't be beat.
 
Ever tried compatability mode?!?!

regsvr32 %systemroot%\AppPatch\slayerui.dll
Create a shortcut to protools, enable compatability mode. It should run. I notice old apps have a bad event loop which tends to hog your CPU under compatability mode. But it should work. Death to Win98!
 
PLEASE HELP ME OUT WITH THIS


Hi. This topic is in some way related to my question. I also have a seperate topic in the operating systems section regarding this.

Anyways, I have Windows XP installed, it was already there, it is on c:, it also has a d: which is used or XP program files and all taht. Then I have a Windows 2000 installation on g:. Here is the problem: I can see c: and d: while in Windows 2000, and access and edit files of c: and d:. Likewise, while in XP, I can access and edit files in g: (I think). This is all on one hard disk. All are NTFS partiitions.

I am concerned of one OS interefering with the other ones data. I want my data to be safe.

Other notes, I installed 2000 while I already had Xp, and then installed 2000. So then, 2000 took over, and I used the repair function of XP disk to repair the installation and not touch any of my important data, but just restore MBR and whatever. (Note: I am not an expert at installing operating systems, so do not laugh if the methods I used to install 2000 with xp already are stupid).

I tried one thing, that was, while in 2000, right click and disable all c: and d: access, I could still see c: and d:, but access to the drives was not available as I expected, but, when I went into XP, c: and d: were not accessible. That shocked me, I guessed XP and 2000 must be sharing some information or whatever. So I undid all the drive access things (not to the previous state though) and things seem back to normal.


Anyways, how do I prevent 2000 from seeing c: and d:?
 
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: Smilin
A fool and his data are soon parted.
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought that was "money." I'm backed up, dude. Wanna buy some data?
Click to expand...

I salute you sir. Most people aren't backed up.
Click to expand...

I've got enough imagination (and enough valuable and hardearned data) to know how bummed out I'd be if I lost it! I'm backed up to different HD, to CDs (in my car's glove compartment), in my brother's desk 400 miles away on DVD+R. Brother, I'm not gonna be denied my data by fire, theft, crash, belly-up PSU, failed HD, virus, hacker or earthquake, lightning or act of so-called-God! 😀
 
Originally posted by: volrath
Ever tried compatability mode?!?!

regsvr32 %systemroot%\AppPatch\slayerui.dll
Create a shortcut to protools, enable compatability mode. It should run. I notice old apps have a bad event loop which tends to hog your CPU under compatability mode. But it should work. Death to Win98!
Click to expand...

Does this work in Win2000 SP4? I'm more than happy to put Win9x behind me. However, I say multi-boot until my OS is bulletproof (only in my dreams!). I plan to multiboot to:

Win98SE
Win2000
Win2000

Haven't installed the second Win2000 yet, that's later in the week. That should give me access to my NTFS files even if one Win2000 goes belly-up. Of course, there are a few other real good reasons to multiboot (testing, troubleshooting, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top