Windows XP And FAT32 Partitions?

[JonathanF]

I just upgraded from Windows ME to Windows XP Professional on my Computer.

I did a clean System Install using the Windows XP Professional Upgrade CD-ROM Disk.

I felt that it would be better to install the Windows XP on a new clean IDE Disk Drive after I backed up my Systems, Applications, and Data to another IDE Disk Drive.

During the System Installation it asked me for a Windows Operating System CD-ROM Disk such as Windows 98SE or Windows ME, Etc during the System Installation.

It did not give me a choice when I chose to Format my 80 Gigabyte IDE Western Digital UMDA 100 with FAT32.

The only choices were either NTFS or Quick NTFS.

I use to run Windows ME on my Computer which had one large 80 Gigabyte Disk Drive "C" FAT32 Partition.

How come in Windows XP, it would not allow me to have one single large 80 Gigabyte Disk Drive Partition like I had in Windows ME.

If I had just upgraded over my existing Windows ME in the first place, would it have allowed me to install Windows XP with the existing 80 Gigabyte Disk Drive "C" using FAT32 like it use to have in Windows ME?

I checked the Microsoft Web Site, and it stated that Windows XP is limited to 32 Gigabyte FAT32 Disk Drive Partitions.

How can this be when Windows ME allowed me to have a one single 80 Gigabyte Disk Drive FAT32 Partition "C"?

Jonathan

 

[Rand]

<< How come in Windows XP, it would not allow me to have one single large 80 Gigabyte Disk Drive Partition like I had in Windows ME.
>>



It's MS's way of pushing people to use NTFS while still saying that their allowing usage of FAT32.



<<
If I had just upgraded over my existing Windows ME in the first place, would it have allowed me to install Windows XP with the existing 80 Gigabyte Disk Drive "C" using FAT32 like it use to have in Windows ME?
>>



Yes, WindowsXP can use 80GB+ Fat32 partitions, MS just doesnt want you using FAT32 so they put in a few unnecessary limitations, such as the inability to format an 80+ GB FAT32 partition.

To be technically correct though, even XP's "upgrade" is not an upgrade in the sense that it simply installs XP on top of your existing OS. When choosing to upgrade over a 9X based OS WinXP will take a snapshot of your HDD and then do a fresh format and install and then re-load the data that was previously contained on the drive.
A rather nice way to allow upgrades and still ensure that there are no difficulties when upgrading rather then choosing a fresh install.



<<
How can this be when Windows ME allowed me to have a one single 80 Gigabyte Disk Drive FAT32 Partition "C"?
>>



FAT32 is capable of it, WindowsXP is also capable of it in theory and if you upgrade it will use it.... but MS wants to transition to strictly NTFS so they limit FAT32 wherever they can get away with it.

 

[corkyg]

I just spent a couple of days installing XP Pro on a backup system using a backup HDD that had a fully functional ME system on it.

I did it both ways. The first way I did it was a clean install. I reformatted the drive, which had 5 partitions on it, and did a totally clean install with XP Pro (Academic edition - similar to OEM.) It was self booting and made no mention of converting to NTFS. Aside from the ID key entry, it was hands off until done.

The problem was that I could not get it set up to use my iDSL connection, and the system was for all practical purposes useless.

OK . . . I recloned the drive back to the good ME system and tried it again, but this time choosing the upgrade mode. That was almost perfect. It installed and my iDSL connection was there and operational.

Both cases left the FAT32 drive alone, and that was fine with me.

It had some anomalies I could not correct, so last night I repeated the process . . . re-cloned the drive back to ME, and then did it again with some hardware mods. I removed all unecessary hardware, including the SCSI card. This time it upgraded almost 100%. Then it was easy to add the hardware one at a time and that's where we are now.

So, my experience has always been that if you have a really solid and stable OS, then do the upgrade and it will usually be good. You can always do a clean install . . . but then you have a mountain of work to do to get back to even where you were. in XP that is frustrating, especially with XP Pro where you get all wrapped around the axle of System Administration. It would be great if a check box could just turn that sucker OFF.

 

[JonathanF]

How large are you Disk Partitions?

Are any of them larger then 32 Gigabytes?

When I wanted to format my 80 Gigabyte IDE Disk Drive as one large Partition, Windows XP Pro did not give me the Option of using FAT32 and only NTFS.

If I had kept my Windows ME System with its one large 80 Gigabyte FAT32 Disk Drive "C", would the Windows XP just performed the Systems Upgrade and left the FAT32 Partition left intact?

I know that NTFS is more secure and stable, but is it slower then NTFS?

Jonathan

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< I know that NTFS is more secure and stable, but is it slower then NTFS? >>



Nope. NTFS is as fast as NTFS.

 

[JonathanF]

I meant that NTFS is more secure and stable then FAT32.

Is NTFS slower then FAT32 since it has more security built in?

I was told that certain Games do not run with NTFS?

Jonathan

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< I meant that NTFS is more secure and stable then FAT32. >>



I know.



<< Is NTFS slower then FAT32 since it has more security built in? >>



For some things, and for some its faster. I do not think the security is necessarily the reason for the slowdown for some things though. Have you read the tech data on Microsoft's site or the FAQs here?



<< I was told that certain Games do not run with NTFS? >>



I was told a lot of things, do I believe it all? No. What would a file system have to do with a program like quake? I cant think of much.

 

[corkyg]

A single partition of 80 GB is somewhat less than good. It will take hours to defrag or optimize or scan. I would make it 3 partitions of 20 GB each. 1 for the OS, 2 for most apps, and 3 for data and the system page file.

 

[Nothinman]

A single partition of 80 GB is somewhat less than good. It will take hours to defrag or optimize or scan

Not necessarily, NTFS partitions defragment consideraly faster than FAT32 because they're designed half decently. FAT32 is a terrible design.

would make it 3 partitions of 20 GB each. 1 for the OS, 2 for most apps, and 3 for data and the system page file.

You mean 4 of 20G?

Anyway, over partitioning is worse than under partitioning. I try to keep things simple and use as few partitions as possible, I also have seperate physical drives for OS, data and programs so that many partitions aren't really necessary for me.