XP on FAT32

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Patrick Dunford, Jun 7, 2004.

  1. I've seen a system that gave me the option of installing XP on a FAT32
    partition that already existed, however on another install I was only
    given the option of formatting NTFS on the partition.

    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
    know it's possible because I have seen XP running on FAT32 partitions
    before). How do I get XP to install itself on a FAT32 partition.

    Also, can Nero copy the XP install CD including its bootable
    functionality or is there a separate step I need to follow to make a copy
    bootable? (We have a sitewide license for XP)
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising


  2. >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??
    Steve Robertson, Jun 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, 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??


    The version we have doesn't support NTFS


    > >Also, can Nero copy the XP install CD including its bootable

    > Yes, Raw mode??
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 7, 2004
    #3
  4. On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 21:17:29 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > I've seen a system that gave me the option of installing XP on a FAT32
    > partition that already existed, however on another install I was only
    > given the option of formatting NTFS on the partition.
    >
    > 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
    > know it's possible because I have seen XP running on FAT32 partitions
    > before). How do I get XP to install itself on a FAT32 partition.


    There are two ways to achieve this. If you have a sufficiently
    small HDD, the windows XP installer will give you the option of
    using FAT32. If you have an 80GB+ drive it will only give you the
    option of using NTFS. The FAT32 option definitely shows up for
    40GB drives though. The other method is to create a FAT32 partition
    on the drive prior to trying to install Windows XP. You can do this
    most easily with a Windows 98 boot disk and the fdisk and format
    commands (Note: if you do this, you must format the disk also
    or the Windows XP installer will not let you install onto it).

    > Also, can Nero copy the XP install CD including its bootable
    > functionality or is there a separate step I need to follow to make a copy
    > bootable? (We have a sitewide license for XP)


    I do not know if all versions of Nero can do this, but some
    certainly can.

    Andrew Bryson
    Andrew Bryson, Jun 7, 2004
    #4
  5. Patrick Dunford

    Gurble Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:00:28 +1200, Andrew Bryson
    <> wrote:

    >There are two ways to achieve this. If you have a sufficiently
    >small HDD, the windows XP installer will give you the option of
    >using FAT32. If you have an 80GB+ drive it will only give you the
    >option of using NTFS. The FAT32 option definitely shows up for
    >40GB drives though.


    Correction: Windows 2000/XP does *not* support the formatting of >32MB
    partitions as FAT32. (ie a 40GB HDD can not be natively formatted as
    FAT32 with Win2K/XP).

    Partitions/Drives smaller than 32MB can be formatted as FAT32 either
    during installation or from within Windows.

    <rant>

    Whilst NTFS is a technically superior operating system, there is
    definately a place for FAT32, most notably in the cross-platform and
    widespread support for it. Which is probably why Microsoft is removing
    support for it...

    Just another example of how each new version of Windows (and Office,
    for that matter) actually takes away your options (eg limiting access
    to drive shares, etc).

    </rant>
    Gurble, Jun 7, 2004
    #5
  6. On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:37:54 +1200, Gurble wrote:

    > Correction: Windows 2000/XP does *not* support the formatting of >32MB
    > partitions as FAT32. (ie a 40GB HDD can not be natively formatted as
    > FAT32 with Win2K/XP).
    >
    > Partitions/Drives smaller than 32MB can be formatted as FAT32 either
    > during installation or from within Windows.


    I shall have to check that next time I am installing such a system.
    I never use the FAT32 option so I do not really pay attention to
    it. I probably should have checked before making such a claim :p.
    Your 32GB limit does sound plausible though :).

    Andrew Bryson
    Andrew Bryson, Jun 7, 2004
    #6
  7. Patrick Dunford

    Fishb8 Guest

    The program, Partition Magic allows you to change from Fat32 to NTFS AND,
    NTFS to Fat32.
    Roy Price
    "Andrew Bryson" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:37:54 +1200, Gurble wrote:
    >
    > > Correction: Windows 2000/XP does *not* support the formatting of >32MB
    > > partitions as FAT32. (ie a 40GB HDD can not be natively formatted as
    > > FAT32 with Win2K/XP).
    > >
    > > Partitions/Drives smaller than 32MB can be formatted as FAT32 either
    > > during installation or from within Windows.

    >
    > I shall have to check that next time I am installing such a system.
    > I never use the FAT32 option so I do not really pay attention to
    > it. I probably should have checked before making such a claim :p.
    > Your 32GB limit does sound plausible though :).
    >
    > Andrew Bryson
    Fishb8, Jun 7, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 21:17:29 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >
    > > I've seen a system that gave me the option of installing XP on a FAT32
    > > partition that already existed, however on another install I was only
    > > given the option of formatting NTFS on the partition.
    > >
    > > 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
    > > know it's possible because I have seen XP running on FAT32 partitions
    > > before). How do I get XP to install itself on a FAT32 partition.

    >
    > There are two ways to achieve this. If you have a sufficiently
    > small HDD, the windows XP installer will give you the option of
    > using FAT32. If you have an 80GB+ drive it will only give you the
    > option of using NTFS. The FAT32 option definitely shows up for
    > 40GB drives though. The other method is to create a FAT32 partition
    > on the drive prior to trying to install Windows XP. You can do this
    > most easily with a Windows 98 boot disk and the fdisk and format
    > commands (Note: if you do this, you must format the disk also
    > or the Windows XP installer will not let you install onto it).


    Thanks. The ones I tried it on that had an 80GB HDD, it only offered NTFS
    so I guess that was the size of the drive. The next one will have a 6.4GB
    HDD.
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 7, 2004
    #8
  9. Patrick Dunford

    MarkH Guest

    Gurble <> wrote in news:9k29c0d4ed5vnt4ko3hl71rhf68jcc7qus@
    4ax.com:

    ><rant>
    >
    > Whilst NTFS is a technically superior operating system, there is
    > definately a place for FAT32, most notably in the cross-platform and
    > widespread support for it. Which is probably why Microsoft is removing
    > support for it...


    Ummm, no. WinXP was developed from Win2K which was developed from WinNT4.
    FAT32 support on WinNT4 was none, both Win2K and WinXP support the creation
    of FAT32 partitions up to 32GB and using existing FAT32 partitions of any
    size. How is MS removing support for it?

    Personally I would not recommend the creation of any FAT32 partition over
    32GB, I believe that there is a problem that MS are not admitting to. Me
    and another technician that I know have played with this a little and found
    that a FAT32 partition bigger than 32GB will corrupt, whereas an NTFS
    partition wont. This is based on multiple instance on multiple machines
    where this theory has been tested.

    > Just another example of how each new version of Windows (and Office,
    > for that matter) actually takes away your options (eg limiting access
    > to drive shares, etc).


    Actually I think that many problems with MS Windows are due to the
    inclusion of legacy support. i.e. MS works too hard to make a version of
    Windows compatible with previous operating systems, to the detriment of the
    performance and reliability of the new product. I haven’t come across any
    limiting of access to drive shares, where and how does that happen?


    As to the OP creating a FAT32 partition to install WinXP:
    Easy - create a partition of 32GB or less during install, format options
    will then include FAT32.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Jun 7, 2004
    #9
  10. In article <ca2p5q$ca8$>, says...
    > Gurble <> wrote in news:9k29c0d4ed5vnt4ko3hl71rhf68jcc7qus@
    > 4ax.com:
    >
    > ><rant>
    > >
    > > Whilst NTFS is a technically superior operating system, there is
    > > definately a place for FAT32, most notably in the cross-platform and
    > > widespread support for it. Which is probably why Microsoft is removing
    > > support for it...

    >
    > Ummm, no. WinXP was developed from Win2K which was developed from WinNT4.
    > FAT32 support on WinNT4 was none, both Win2K and WinXP support the creation
    > of FAT32 partitions up to 32GB and using existing FAT32 partitions of any
    > size. How is MS removing support for it?
    >
    > Personally I would not recommend the creation of any FAT32 partition over
    > 32GB, I believe that there is a problem that MS are not admitting to. Me
    > and another technician that I know have played with this a little and found
    > that a FAT32 partition bigger than 32GB will corrupt, whereas an NTFS
    > partition wont. This is based on multiple instance on multiple machines
    > where this theory has been tested.
    >
    > > Just another example of how each new version of Windows (and Office,
    > > for that matter) actually takes away your options (eg limiting access
    > > to drive shares, etc).

    >
    > Actually I think that many problems with MS Windows are due to the
    > inclusion of legacy support. i.e. MS works too hard to make a version of
    > Windows compatible with previous operating systems, to the detriment of the
    > performance and reliability of the new product. I haven=3Ft come across any
    > limiting of access to drive shares, where and how does that happen?
    >
    >
    > As to the OP creating a FAT32 partition to install WinXP:
    > Easy - create a partition of 32GB or less during install, format options
    > will then include FAT32.


    This is the MS support article that refers to the 32 GB limit on a Fat32
    partition.

    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;301340
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 8, 2004
    #10
  11. Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jun 8, 2004
    #11
  12. Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jun 8, 2004
    #12
  13. Patrick Dunford

    Gurble Guest

    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.
    Gurble, Jun 8, 2004
    #13
  14. 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
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jun 8, 2004
    #14
  15. Patrick Dunford

    AD. Guest

    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
    AD., Jun 8, 2004
    #15
  16. In article <>,
    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?
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 8, 2004
    #16
  17. Patrick Dunford

    Rudy Seoa Guest

    In article <>, 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/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.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??
    >
    Rudy Seoa, Jun 8, 2004
    #17
  18. In article <>, 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.
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 10, 2004
    #18
  19. Patrick Dunford

    Richard Guest

    > 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?
    Richard, Jun 10, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <40c7a87a$>, 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.
    Patrick Dunford, Jun 11, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Prynce

    Re: Should I use fat32 for win2k pro? or ntfs?

    The Prynce, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    606
    neopolaris
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions

    Re: Question re:ntfs vs fat32

    John Haithwaite @ Blue Case Solutions, Jul 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,068
    Ralph Wade Phillips
    Jul 9, 2003
  3. PJB

    Re: Question re:ntfs vs fat32

    PJB, Jul 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    508
  4. Huey

    Re: Question re:ntfs vs fat32

    Huey, Jul 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    456
  5. Brian H¹©

    Re: Reformat Fat32 DVD Drives?

    Brian H¹©, Jul 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    583
    Bregmata Martyr
    Jul 15, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page