Anna added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
As Tim has pointed out, for all practical purposes there
really is no limit to partition size re FAT32-formatted
partitions. If, for one reason or another, a user desires to
use the FAT32 file system in a WinXP environment, he or she
can do so. As we all know there is that 32 GB limitation
involving *creating* FAT32 partitions from within XP, i.e.,
through the Disk Management utility, however these > 32 GB
FAT32 partitions can be created through other means, primarily
using the FDISK/FORMAT commands from a DOS boot disk, e.g., a
Win9x/Me "Startup Disk". And then the XP OS will happily use
those > 32 GB FAT32 partitions.
There was (and is) a problem with large-capacity disks, i.e.,
problems arise in those operating systems with using the
defragmentation & disk scanning utilities. We've also run into
serious disk corruption errors in general which we attributed
to those large-capacity FAT32-formatted drives. Our general
recommendation to users of those operating systems is to
install no HDD > 120 GB.
I still don't understand, Anna, why I can't get Partition Magic
to format larger than in the 150 gig range. Is it wounded or
defective? As you know, Symantec bought it but never ever updated
it. And, other competitive products seem to have similar
problems, although I cannot personally vouch for any limits on
partition size.
Just for the record, how would I format a FAT32 partition on,
say, a 500 gig external to over 150? I know and understand FDISK
but am very skittish about it because a minor mistep can wipe out
my primary. Yes, I am cautious, some would say overly cautious,
but I've found in my 60 year life that it pays to not lead with
my chin.
Thanks for your comments.
Like virtually all other commentators, for a variety of
reasons, we ordinarily recommend using the NTFS file system in
an XP environment. However, as one or more posters has
commented, we too have run into situations - primarily
involving custom-designed programs specialized for use in a
business - where the program simply refused to work or worked
erratically within an NTFS file system but had no problem when
installed in a FAT32 file system in an XP environment. So in
those cases the user had little or no choice to use the FAT32
file system. Anna
Here, you're talking about my nephew's experience in getting
proprietary SW to run on newer versions of Windows that he wants
for various computer-controlled machine tools or measuring
devices, as well as some versions of smaller CAD or CAM cutter
path SW, or even apps designed to program things like so-called
"programmable controllers" for CNC-anything, robots, and the
like.
Incidently, do you have an opinion on my observation that FAT32
is much faster on read/writes than NTFS as well as far faster to
just bring up a folder tree? For awhile, NTFS on my extended
partitions (I have two) and my external were SO slow, many
minutes to just get a tree, that I reformatted them as FAT32. For
other reasons, primarily the need to store very large Acronis
True Image image files, I was forced to go back to NTFS. It was
as if a miracle had occurred. I've had little trouble since,
although my Maxtor 300 gig with 2 NTFS partitions (I wanted 2 to
separate the data on the drive logically) normally works fine,
there ARE occasions when it'll go away for a minute or two trying
to access one of the partitions in Explorer.
Again, thanks for your observations. Am I correc that you are the
same "Anna" that posted that excellent True Image tutorial some
time back? Very nicely written and quite helpful.
