Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > XP on FAT32

Reply
Thread Tools

XP on FAT32

 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2004
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>Why not just ghost a NTFS partition??


> The version we have doesn't support NTFS


The version of ghost? oh ok, they've always worked for me.

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
http://www.dunedinwireless.co.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2004
Gurble wrote:
> (eg limiting access
> to drive shares, etc).


This is a bad thing?
heard of security?

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
http://www.dunedinwireless.co.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gurble
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2004
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:30:24 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
<dave@no_spam_here_please.dave.net.nz> wrote:

>Gurble wrote:
>> (eg limiting access
>> to drive shares, etc).

>
>This is a bad thing?
>heard of security?


Nah, I was referring to the number of machines that can connect to a
share:

Windows 95/98/NT : No Limit
Windows 2000/XP Pro : max. 10 machines
Windows XP Home : max. 5 machines
Longhorn : ???

The only reason for this artificial limit is to try to force people
into purchasing Windows Server, when this is really quite unnecessary
if it's just being used as a file server.

(I know the benefits of Windows Server - centralised admin etc - but
sometimes people just want to share files on a network, and there are
often reasons why a domain controller is not wanted/needed. The key is
that, even if it is better to use a domain controller with > 10
machines, you no longer have the choice. Actually, that's not entirely
true - We now quite happily use a Linux server running Samba).

Another example is sharing an inbox in Outlook between two users. Used
to not be a problem, but ever since Office 2002, they've quietly
removed the ability unless you purchase Exchange.

There are a pile of similar features that have been quietly disabled
or reduced with each successive version of both Windows and Office in
an attempt to force people to purchase Server and Exchange etc.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2004
Gurble wrote:
>>>(eg limiting access
>>>to drive shares, etc).


>>This is a bad thing?
>>heard of security?


> Nah, I was referring to the number of machines that can connect to a
> share:
> Windows 95/98/NT : No Limit
> Windows 2000/XP Pro : max. 10 machines
> Windows XP Home : max. 5 machines
> Longhorn : ???


oh ok, if you want to run a server, buy a server OS... 2000 and
XP(either version) are not server OS's, nor should they be treated as
such... sure they're fine for home servers, in which case 10
simultanious connections should be fine.

> The only reason for this artificial limit is to try to force people
> into purchasing Windows Server, when this is really quite unnecessary
> if it's just being used as a file server.


depends on the number of users it is serving to... I can see why you
would want to use 2003 server.

> Another example is sharing an inbox in Outlook between two users. Used
> to not be a problem, but ever since Office 2002, they've quietly
> removed the ability unless you purchase Exchange.


You can share it, just not at the same time

> There are a pile of similar features that have been quietly disabled
> or reduced with each successive version of both Windows and Office in
> an attempt to force people to purchase Server and Exchange etc.


I must not use them then, as I have hardly noticed any differences, just
a bit more bloat.

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
http://www.dunedinwireless.co.nz
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2004
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 14:44:11 +1200, Gurble wrote:

> Nah, I was referring to the number of machines that can connect to a
> share:
>
> Windows 95/98/NT : No Limit
> Windows 2000/XP Pro : max. 10 machines Windows XP Home : max. 5 machines
> Longhorn : ???
>
> The only reason for this artificial limit is to try to force people into
> purchasing Windows Server, when this is really quite unnecessary if it's
> just being used as a file server.


Actually NT Workstation 4.0 also had that limit. It's not just a limit on
file sharing clients, it's also a limit on any tcp/ip connection (to the
reserved ports).

One reason it came about was to stop NT workstation being used as a web
server...

http://tim.oreilly.com/misc/10-conn/ntwks4.html

There was no need to limit 9x is this way because it was fundamentally
unsuitable for internet serving.

Of course, there is now a cheap web edition of Windows Server though.

Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:30:24 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
> <dave@no_spam_here_please.dave.net.nz> wrote:
>
> >Gurble wrote:
> >> (eg limiting access
> >> to drive shares, etc).

> >
> >This is a bad thing?
> >heard of security?

>
> Nah, I was referring to the number of machines that can connect to a
> share:
>
> Windows 95/98/NT : No Limit


False. NT has a limit of 10, the same as 2000/XP.

> Windows 2000/XP Pro : max. 10 machines
> Windows XP Home : max. 5 machines
> Longhorn : ???


> The only reason for this artificial limit is to try to force people
> into purchasing Windows Server, when this is really quite unnecessary
> if it's just being used as a file server.
>
> (I know the benefits of Windows Server - centralised admin etc - but
> sometimes people just want to share files on a network, and there are
> often reasons why a domain controller is not wanted/needed. The key is
> that, even if it is better to use a domain controller with > 10
> machines, you no longer have the choice. Actually, that's not entirely
> true - We now quite happily use a Linux server running Samba).
>
> Another example is sharing an inbox in Outlook between two users. Used
> to not be a problem, but ever since Office 2002, they've quietly
> removed the ability unless you purchase Exchange.


Do pray tell, just how do you share a PST file, when normal file sharing
semantics are such that only database users can view the same data at the
same time?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rudy Seoa
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> >I want to create an XP installation on FAT32, if this is possible, make a
> >ghost image of it, and then convert the disk to NTFS. How is this done (I

> Converting from Fat32 to NTFS you loose some of the advantages of NTFS
> (cant remember exactly what)


The resulting NTFS partition won't be optimal for XP, see:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...reinstall.mspx

From memory you lose ~10% disk performance over a native NTFS format.

> Why not just ghost a NTFS partition??
>
> >Also, can Nero copy the XP install CD including its bootable

> Yes, Raw mode??
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> >I want to create an XP installation on FAT32, if this is possible, make a
> >ghost image of it, and then convert the disk to NTFS. How is this done (I

> Converting from Fat32 to NTFS you loose some of the advantages of NTFS
> (cant remember exactly what)
> Why not just ghost a NTFS partition??
>
> >Also, can Nero copy the XP install CD including its bootable

> Yes, Raw mode??


I just told it to copy CD and it copied fine, boots fine.

I gave up the idea of ghosting XP when I found it could install over the
network. The main reason for wanting to ghost is to install it on
computers that don't have a CD ROM drive. But it is possible to install
it from a shared CD ROM drive on another computer.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2004
> I just told it to copy CD and it copied fine, boots fine.
>
> I gave up the idea of ghosting XP when I found it could install over the
> network. The main reason for wanting to ghost is to install it on
> computers that don't have a CD ROM drive. But it is possible to install
> it from a shared CD ROM drive on another computer.


How do you do that? It would be mighty usefull for me here, I assume you boot
off either a USB key or a set of floppies?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Patrick Dunford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-10-2004
In article <40c7a87a$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > I just told it to copy CD and it copied fine, boots fine.
> >
> > I gave up the idea of ghosting XP when I found it could install over the
> > network. The main reason for wanting to ghost is to install it on
> > computers that don't have a CD ROM drive. But it is possible to install
> > it from a shared CD ROM drive on another computer.

>
> How do you do that? It would be mighty usefull for me here, I assume you boot
> off either a USB key or a set of floppies?


Basically you need some software that will give you a UNC path to a
network resource.

I would like to know if there is software, other than Ghost, that will
give you a network connection from a floppy boot. Used to be you could
get network addons for Dos, and Novell was also pretty good at that sort
of thing, or you could use a network boot [[but most NICs don't come with
the boot roms these days]

What I did was to install Win98 using ghost then run XP setup over a UNC
path to a cd rom drive on another computer. XP setup copies files across
the path and then reboots itself, then [I think] it reestablishes the
network connection and copies more files across until it has enough to
install.

A drawback of this is you can't format the partition from scratch as
NTFS, you have to convert from the existing FAT32 partition during the
install. I don't know if this makes any difference from formatting NTFS
as scratch.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAT32 Filesystem knight1fox3 VHDL 1 12-03-2003 05:01 PM
Re: Question re:ntfs vs fat32 John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions Computer Support 7 07-09-2003 08:27 PM
Re: Question re:ntfs vs fat32 Huey Computer Support 0 07-07-2003 12:56 PM
Re: Question re:ntfs vs fat32 PJB Computer Support 0 07-07-2003 12:25 AM
Re: Should I use fat32 for win2k pro? or ntfs? The Prynce Computer Support 4 07-05-2003 03:22 AM



Advertisments