[franca]

Microsoft tries hard to make things easy for its customers. But some decisions can't be avoided. And they require a little knowledge.

When you install XP, you'll be asked to select a file format. The choice: FAT, FAT32 and NTFS. The most modern, and the best pick, is NTFS. It has better security features and more fault tolerance.

FAT (file allocation table) goes back to the dark days of DOS. It can only handle hard drive partitions of two gigabytes. An 80-gigabyte hard drive would need 40 partitions. Forget FAT! FAT32 was introduced with a late version of Windows 95. It's an evolutionary development of FAT. It will work with XP, but does not have the advantages of NTFS.

[mobo]

where did you get the info that fat can only handle a 2 gig partition ? That is completly untrue. I have a 30 gig on a second pc that is fat 32. The reality of it is that you can easily partition a fat32 up to 32 gig then you will have to do a little extra work to go beyond that. The advantage of fat is that it accesses data faster than ntfs.

[mobo]

FYI
A fat 16 can only go to 2 gig and a fat 32 can go to 2 terrabytes

[JohnWill]

In addition, if you plan on dual-booting to W9x or ME, you'll need to format the C: partition to FAT32 for it to work.

[XbrvhrtX]

Someone must have been reading my mind...I was just wondering about this very subject...And when I read your post franca I assumed your advice on the FAT partitions at 2 gig was a refrence to FAT16 and not FAT32 wich you described as "evolutionary development " and could handle larger drives.

To recap, you would advise if running XP alone NTFS would be better (I would choose security over data access speed as a prefrence). And as johnwill would advise if dual booting, it would have to be FAT32....Is this correct??

[mobo]

No.. Xp does not have to be fat to dual boot. It can run on its native ntfs file system but you cannot access files from fat into ntfs. However you can access files on fat from ntfs. I currently quad boot and i left xp at ntfs for its stability and all works great.

[XbrvhrtX]

Originally posted by motherboard:
. I currently quad boot and i left xp at ntfs for its stability and all works great.

LOL i have enough trouble with 1 OS, I'm just thinking about dual boot now.

What would you advise as a dual boot system, I have 98se, ME, 2000 pro and XP pro.

I have been reluctant to go anywhere near XP at this time as there were many hardware/software issues when it was released, But I would like to try it now.

Also as I have never had a dual boot system actually up and running yet I'm curious about the sharing issues like MY DOCS and favourites and progs like that...does the OS on the C: drive hold these or are they divided to the OS you are running at the time (I hope thst doesnt sound like a daft question )

I did try to dual boot a few months ago but i came accross problems about missing files, i did get as far as partially loading XP on to my D: drive and on first restart of XP loading I did get the option of what OS to run but thats as far as i got due to missing files...I ended up re formating my D: drive and just sticking to 98se

[mobo]

As part of my quad boot are 2000 pro and xp pro and they work very nicely together. I would suggest using those two as a dual boot. Don't worry about all the stories on xp like holes and such as micro$oft has been doing well with updates. I would consider xp to be the best system on the market (only my opinion though) and 2000 to be a close second.

If you know how to partition the drive then you're on your way. Set the partitions without formatting them then beging the install starting with w2k then xp on the second partition.

[XbrvhrtX]

I have what i call my test machine which already has 2000pro loaded, its ony a 4 gig drive but have about 3 gigs left, should i just partition that using fdisk? how much space will I need.

Oh it only has 96mb of ram is this enough for XP just so i can learn my way around it.

[mobo]

I wouldn't even consider it with only a 4 gig drive. Xp alone will take about 2.5 gig to install and thats without programs. As well xp needs at least 128 ram to run even decent and 256 to start to breath well. Your better off leaving the 2000 the way it is and start considering some ram so 2000 can fly a little.

[XbrvhrtX]

Ahhh there in lies another problem, this old test machine is a dell optiplex G1, there are 2 stix of 64mb ram in it but only shows 96mb, its bios version is A04 and i`m wondering if this is why it doesnt recignise the full 128mb (or of course it could just be faulty ram) also the drive should be 6.4 gig but only shows 4 gig but that problem has been tossed about on this thread http://forums.techguy.org/t145445/s.html

also, i just want to navigate around XP wont really be loading much software at this time, I may eventualy put it on my internet machine which has a second drive which is 60gig, But I would rather not muck about with that untill i get a bit more experiance on XP

[XbrvhrtX]

Also as I have never had a dual boot system actually up and running yet I'm curious about the sharing issues like MY DOCS and favourites and progs like that...does the OS on the C: drive hold these or are they divided to the OS you are running at the time (I hope thst doesnt sound like a daft question )

Any thoughts on these other concerns?

[XbrvhrtX]

Hey Franca sorry to steal your thread

[mobo]

Your bios only shows 96 mb of ram because thats the maximum it can handle.

When you have multiple systems in your pc you usually have each system independent on its own. what i mean is adaware on each , an antivirus on each etc. Although you can access things from another system you still have to have many of the programs loaded on each system independently .

[mobo]

As far as navigating around xp on the older system you should first run a compatability test to see potential problems that may arise during and after installation. You can run a test here .