Is Windows 2000 buggier with FAT32?

[Dunbar]

I built a system for my mom, at the time I didn't know an ATA100 HD couldn't use the Windows 2000 CD to format w/ NTFS. Due to time constraints I formatted with FAT32, I run my Win2k box with NTFS. My mom's computer seems to act like the Win95/98/ME kernel in that it seems to need to be rebooted somewhat often or it acts buggy. Is this normal and simply a result of the FAT32 file system?

 

[Damascus]

I haven't run into any FAT32 related problems on my Win2K machine.

 

[Nothinman]

The FAT32 driver is there whether you use it or not. It's possible you found a bug in the FAT32 driver, but it's very unlikely especially with the symptoms you describe.

 

[rbV5]

<< I built a system for my mom, at the time I didn't know an ATA100 HD couldn't use the Windows 2000 CD to format w/ NTFS. >>



Thats news to me, especially since I've used my ata100 Maxtor drives to format w/NTFS first Win2k and now XP several times. Who told you that, ad why would drive transfer protocol have anything to do with it?

And why would a file system be "buggier"? The proggies all still have to make the same calls anyway?

 

[Dunbar]

The partitioning utility on the CD didn't give me the option of NTFS, just FAT32. Plus someone asked this question on the Tech TV show The Screen Savers and that's the answer they gave. Anecdotally I've had no problem with an ATA66 drive on the same computer, only when that drive died and I added the ATA100 drive did I have the problem. As far as FAT32, you just hear that NTFS is a much more robust file system so that's why I asked the question. Also, Win98/ME use FAT32 and I didn't know if it was part of the reason for the bugginess of the OS.

 

[igiveup]

Well, if you are running in windows 98 and you put your cd in it will copy the files to the hard drive. When it does this it won't show you the NTFS option because you are using your files off of a FAT32 partition, and to reformat with NTFS would destroy the files it wrote to disk for the installation.

If your OS install is buggy, make sure you have all of the latest drivers for your hardware, and upgrade to the latest service pack, which would be Service Pack 2.

 

[rbV5]

Actually, IIRC you choose the file system after you pick or create the partition you want to install to, just prior to installation , it asks you something about changing the file system, or leaving it intact, or something to that effect, anyway I've always had the option of either file system, and I use NTFS only and use only my ATA100 drives for my OS, even before ATA100 was even supported my drives simply were recognised as ATA66 drives and NTFS was the file system I used.

I don't think I'd trust Tech TV for troubleshooting advice hehe.

Win98 runs on fat16 as well, the "buggyness" of Win9x is related mostly to the old kernel and predominately memory handling, both much improved with the NT kernel that Win2k and now XP are built on. NTFS adds security and data features, but I don't think OS stability is really a function of the actual file system per say.

 

[Yvo]

Why are you blaming the File System or Windows 2000 for that matter.

It might be a specific hardware problem that a combination of hardware isn't work correct.

As you were saying that it didn't do it with the ATA66 drive, but it does with the ATA100 it might be a compatibility problem.

What are your system specs and did you update any of the default installed drivers, if so which ones?

Also what chipset from what company and what model are you running?

 

[themadmonk]

Doubt that it would be buggier in Win2K.

 

[Fatt]

FWIW I just built a w2k box a couple of months ago.
I used an ATA100 HD in is and I installed w2k off the CD, which was running in the CD drive and I went NTFS.

So...'
I guess I'd have to say that you CAN use NTFS with an ATA100 HD