Is FAT32 format gone?

[Anna]

(Sorry about the screwy formatting in my previous post. Trust this one is
clearer!)


As Tim (Slattery) 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
WinXPenvironment, 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., > 127 GB binary,
when used with a Win9x/Me OS. For one thing 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.

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 installedin 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


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.

(SNIP)

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. --
HP, aka Jerry


Anna responds...
Jerry:I honestly don't know why you're having trouble using the Partition
Magic program (I assume you're using the 8.01 version) to create one or more
FAT32 partitions. It's usually a very "cut & dried" procedure with PM.
Although I have to admit it's been a very long time since we used that
program to create large FAT32 partitions. In the event when we *do* find it
necessary, we invariably use the FDISK & FORMAT commands from a DOS boot
floppy disk or CD to create FAT32 partitions.

As to formatting a FAT32 partition on your external 500 GB HDD...
I'm assuming it's a USB external HDD, right? If so, you really won't be able
to use the FDISK/FORMAT commands in that situation because of the USB
interface. It will be necessary to install the disk as an *internal* HDD in
your system and then boot to the DOS boot disk to invoke the
FDISK/FORMATcommands. Then, of course, reinstall the disk back in its USB
enclosure.

Now, there *is* ostensibly a program that purports to format FAT32
partitions > 32 GB from *within* WinXP. It's a Linux-based program - the
mkdosfs.exe program that you can download in ZIP format from...
http://www.mager.org/mkdosfs/
Basically the process is to create the partition on your USB external HDD
using the Disk Management utility in XP and format the > 32 GB partition in
NTFS. Then use the mkdosfs.exe program which will be installed in your XP
system to format that partition FAT32. We've used this program a number of
times and for the most part it "worked". But I have to tell you that in a
couple of cases we later ran into some data corruption issues which, while
we couldn't definitively *prove* they were caused by the mkdosfs
FAT32-formatting process, we were (and continue to be) uneasy about using
the program again. So if you want to try out this program (it's a freebie)
you may first want to experiment with it by testing with some non-critical
data. But I would be cautious about using it without any reservations until
you're confident of its validity.

In any event, if you are able to uninstall the 500 GB HDD from its USB
enclosure and then install it as an internal HDD in your XP system, I would
go ahead and use the FDISK/FORMAT commands as indicated above. As you
probably know it's a rather straightforward process and shouldn't cause you
any difficulty. Just take your time and understand those commands' options
before you start pressing keys as you go through the process.

As to your questions re the differences between the FAT32 & NTFS file
systems as to performance (speed of read/writes). I really can't conclude
the FAT32 file system is faster in this regard. As I previously stated,
unless the user has some special need to use the FAT32 file system because
of some program/system compatibility issues, we strongly recommend employing
the NTFS file system in an XP environment.

And yes, I'm the very same "Anna" and thank you for your nice comment. I'm
glad to hear you found those Acronis True Image step-by-step instructions
helpful. I might mention in passing that we've actually been using another
disk cloning program since earlier this year and we've been quite impressed
with it. To the point where it's our disk-cloning program of choice and we
prefer it over the ATI program. It's the Casper 4.0 program
(http://www.fssdev.com).
Perhaps you've come across a couple of my postings in which I extolled the
virtues of this program and provided some details as to using it. It's
certainly worth looking into. In this connection you might want to take a
look at my post to this newsgroup of August 7 - the subject being "Re: needa
good backup method or program".

(BTW, I'm leaving for a two-month overseas assignment tomorrow morning and
will not have access to this & other newsgroups during that time. I mention
this only because I probably won't have an opportunity to respond to any
further posts over the next few months.)
Anna

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

philo added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...


There's still a limit on partition size. Please don't hold me to
this number, but it is in the range of 150 gig for any single
partitition.

No, it's *much* greater than 150GB. The maximum FAT32 volume size is
2TB (2048GB)--greater than any hard drive available today.

 

[Guest]

There isn't actually a format called MS-DOS. I suspect that the Mac
formatted it to FAT32 or possibly even FAT16 (which is what MS-DOS actually
used).

Yes, Thanks. I had a "Duh" moment when I looked at it again and saw (FAT32)
in parentheses.
Thanks, Frank B.

 

[Tim Slattery]

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?

I doubt there's much difference in reads and writes, once you have a
file open. NTFS stores files within a directory in a Btree structure,
while FAT32 simply has a sequential list. That means that it will be
faster to get the entire list from the FAT-style directory, but it
will be *lots* faster to find one file in a large NTFS directory.
(And, of course, there's no limit on number of files in an NTFS
directory.)

 

[M.I.5¾]

I think you'd have to ask Symantec that question. We've heard in this
newsgroup from people who have used FAT32 partitions larger than 150GB
(one poster reported a FAT32 partition of 300GB! Not for me, thanks),
so it's certainly possible to do.

Erm 400GB here.

 

[M.I.5¾]

Anna added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...


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.

In fact I used Partition Magic to create my 400 GB FAT32 partition. I can't
think of any other way I would have done it.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Anna added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/r
eskit/core/fncc_fil_tvjq.mspx?mfr=true>> -->> Tim Slattery>>
MS MVP(DTS)>> (e-mail address removed)>>
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt"Anna" <[email protected]>
wrote in
messageAs
Tim has pointed out, for all practical purposes there really
is nolimit> to partition size re FAT32-formatted partitions.
If, for one reason or> another, a user desires to use the
FAT32 file system in a WinXPenvironment,> he or she can do
so. As we all know there is that 32 GB limitationinvolving>
*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., > 127 GB> binary,
when used with a Win9x/Me OS. For one thing problems arise
inthose> operating systems with using the defragmentation &
disk scanningutilities.> 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.>> 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 installedin> 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.>
messageI
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.(SNIP)> 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.> --> HP, aka
JerryJerry:I honestly don't know why you're having trouble
using the Partition Magicprogram (I assume you're using the
8.01 version) to create one or more FAT32partitions. It's
usually a very "cut & dried" procedure with PM. Although
Ihave to admit it's been a very long time since we used that
program tocreate large FAT32 partitions. In the event we *do*
find it necessary, weinvariably use the FDISK & FORMAT
commands from a DOS boot floppy disk or CDto create FAT32
partitions.As to formatting a FAT32 partition on your
external 500 GB HDD...I'm assuming it's a USB external HDD,
right? If so, you really won't be ableto use the FDISK/FORMAT
commands in that situation because of the USBinterface. It
will be necessary to install the disk as an *internal* HDD
inyour system and then boot to the DOS boot disk to invoke
the FDISK/FORMATcommands. Then, of course, reinstall the disk
in its USB enclosure.Now, there *is* ostensibly a program
that purports to format FAT32partitions > 32 GB from *within*
WinXP. It's a Linux-based program - themkdosfs.exe program
that you can download in ZIP format
fromhttp://www.mager.org/mkdosfs/Basically the process is to
create the partition on your USB external HDDusing the Disk
Management utility in XP and format the > 32 GB partition
inNTFS. Then use the mkdosfs.exe program which will be
installed in your XPsystem to format that partition FAT32.
We've used this program a number oftimes and for the most
part it "worked". But I have to tell you that in acouple of
cases we later ran into some data corruption issues which,
whilewe couldn't *prove* they were caused by the mkdosfs
FAT32-formattingprocess, we were (and continue to be) uneasy
about using the program again.So you may first want to
experiment with this program by testing it withsome
non-critical data. But I would be cautious about using it
without anyreservations until you're confident of its
effectiveness.In any event, if you are able to uninstall the
500 GB HDD from its USBenclosure and then install it as an
internal HDD in your XP system, I wouldgo ahead and use the
FDISK/FORMAT commands as indicated above. As youprobably know
it's a rather straightforward process and shouldn't cause
youany difficulty. Just take your time and understand those
commands' optionsas you go through the process.As to your
questions re the differences between the FAT32 & NTFS
filesystems as to performance (speed of read/writes). I
really can't concludethe FAT32 file system is faster in this
regard. As I previously stated,unless the user has some
special need to use the FAT32 file system becauseof some
program/system compatibility issues, we strongly recommend
employingthe NTFS file system in an XP environment.And yes,
I'm the very same "Anna" and thank you for your nice comment.
I'mglad to hear you found those Acronis True Image
step-by-step instructionshelpful. I might mention in passing
that we've actually been using anotherdisk cloning program
since earlier this year and we've been quite impressedwith
it. To the point where it's our disk-cloning program of
choice and weprefer it over the ATI program. It's the Casper
4.0 program (seehttp://www.fssdev.com)Perhaps you've come
across a couple of my postings in which I extolled thevirtues
of this program and provided some details as to using it.
It'scertainly worth looking into. In this connection you
might want to take alook at my post to this newsgroup of
August 7 - the subject being "Re: needa good backup method or
program".(BTW, I'm leaving for a two-month overseas
assignment tomorrow morning andwill not have access to this &
other newsgroups during that time. I mentionthis only because
I probably won't have an opportunity to respond to anyfurther
posts over the next few months.)Anna

Thank you immensely, Anna, I've saved your excellent reply for
future reference.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Tim Slattery added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

I doubt there's much difference in reads and writes, once you
have a file open. NTFS stores files within a directory in a
Btree structure, while FAT32 simply has a sequential list.
That means that it will be faster to get the entire list from
the FAT-style directory, but it will be *lots* faster to find
one file in a large NTFS directory. (And, of course, there's
no limit on number of files in an NTFS directory.)

I didn't know that, but fully believe that is what I am
experiencing exactly. I have timed small, medium, and large reads
and writes to both systems and found FAT32 to be faster, but what
used to plague me severely, and occasionally does today only less
so, is building the B-Tree, hence I have to sit on my hands until
it refreshes that. Theoretically, and you know how much I hate
theory vs. reality, this should only have to be done once unless
something drastically changes, but my symptoms seem to indicate
that the cached tree sturcture somehow ages and XP/NTFS decides
it needs to rebuild it, hence I have the problem. I never figured
out why it was so severe initially upon getting SP2/NTFS and
never figured out how/why it pretty much went away, but I don't
look gift horses in the mouth! <grin>

I keep an orderly system, with Windows and my apps on C:\ and NO
data, non-graphics data of all types on D:\ and graphics-only
data on E:\. That enables me to not only do a more efficient and
effective job of file management, but the smaller tree is faster
for Windows and my apps to access.

Thanks for answering my question that I've been wondering about
for almost 2 years.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Tim Slattery added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

I think you'd have to ask Symantec that question. We've heard
in this newsgroup from people who have used FAT32 partitions
larger than 150GB (one poster reported a FAT32 partition of
300GB! Not for me, thanks), so it's certainly possible to do.

Symantec is no help. First, their tech support is in India where
they speak English but not American and NOT technical. Second,
they have steadfastly refused to update Partition Magic after
they bought it. So, it is pointless. This is more of an annoyance
to me than a major problem, so I just live with the limitation. I
know I can use FDISK but don't like it because it is risky if
anything goes wrong, and I have no real need for a PM
replacement, plus I've heard bad things of other sorts from its
major competitors.

I do not dispute what people actually experience, as I am not
sitting next to them at the PC. Equally, though, people shouldn't
overly dispute me for the same reason. Better, I think to ask
questions politely than to speak "facts" which may not be facts.
Hence, besides FDISK or some other Windows-based partitioning and
formatting utility, I am stuck for now, but that really is OK.
Should I get a really large external, I would likely no longer
use FAT32 again, as I resolved by accident the slowness that I
initially experience with NTFS, hence this is an academic
exercise. No, I was NOT trolling by getting into this, I was
trying to learn. I'm still not at all clear, but I am still in
learning mode.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

No, it's *much* greater than 150GB. The maximum FAT32 volume
size is 2TB (2048GB)--greater than any hard drive available
today.

That is what the bit-length calculates out to, Ken, as has been
discussed. However, getting there in a practical way in the real
world involves software I do not at all understand. But, this much
I do understand: I cannot do a FAT32 partition at all with XP and
would need to resort to the risks of FDISK or some 3rd party
solution.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

M.I.5¾ added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

In fact I used Partition Magic to create my 400 GB FAT32
partition. I can't think of any other way I would have done
it.

I have what I believe to be the latest version, I think it is 8.01,
and it refuses to do that on the 3 external HDs I tried it on.
Eventually, though, I worked around the reason I wanted to use
FAT32, performance, AND found a direct requirement for NTFS, which
was 5+ GB image files from Acronis True Image that could not be
written to FAT32 in over about 2.5 gig pieces. Now, I'm probably
going to start another firestorm of protest with this assertion,
but I have found in my life that reality trumps all the other cards
in the game, so I went to Acronis's web site and checked in with
tech support. THEY told me that FAT32 cannot handle a 5 gig file,
so I switched rather than fight the obvious.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

That is what the bit-length calculates out to, Ken, as has been
discussed. However, getting there in a practical way in the real
world involves software I do not at all understand.

From a practical standpoint, since there are no drives that big, it
doesn't matter. In practice, you can have a FAT32 partition as big as
any drive made today.

But, this much
I do understand: I cannot do a FAT32 partition at all

You mean "over 32GB," I assume, not "at all."

with XP and
would need to resort to the risks of FDISK or some 3rd party
solution.

Correct.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

THEY told me that FAT32 cannot handle a 5 gig file,
so I switched rather than fight the obvious.

Yes, The file size limit for FAT32 is 4GB.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

From a practical standpoint, since there are no drives that
big, it doesn't matter. In practice, you can have a FAT32
partition as big as any drive made today.

Ken, I'm going to voluntarily stand down here. It is both academic
and moot for me, since my NTFS complaints somehow repaired
themselves and I have no reason to use FAT32 any longer. I
appreciate your observations and that of others, and while I am
still pretty fuzzy, I don't want to continue a debate for a
personal thing that is no longer crucial to me. As to others, if
they still have a FAT32 issue, they should certainly voice it, and
we'll just stay away from more debate on what any practical limits
to partition size may or may not be. Thank you.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

Yes, The file size limit for FAT32 is 4GB.

OK, thanks for straigtening me out, Ken. Somehow, I had 2.5 gig in
my addled brain but now that you mention it, that IS what Acronis
said - 4 gig. I write my images, which get up into the 5-6 gig
range, to an external HD, then occasionally create a dual-layer DVD
as backup to the backup. It is very problematical to me to envision
True Image being able to fully use even its own multi-part files if
the Windows damage is severe enough. And, with my system being
relatively lightly loaded, I think I will be able to get it all
onto a dual-layer DVD.

Incidently, one of the things I do before I run TI is to delete my
swapfile, clean out all the temp files, move anything off C:\ that
isn't crucial, and most importantly, do the most comprehensive
malware scans I possibly can. It makes absolutely no sense to image
an infected system. The reason I kill the swap file, which is
almost 800MB for me, is that I don't see need for backing up 800
meg of nothing. Am I correct in doing this?

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

OK, thanks for straigtening me out, Ken.

You're welcome. Always glad to help.

Incidently, one of the things I do before I run TI is to delete my
swapfile, clean out all the temp files, move anything off C:\ that
isn't crucial, and most importantly, do the most comprehensive
malware scans I possibly can. It makes absolutely no sense to image
an infected system. The reason I kill the swap file, which is
almost 800MB for me, is that I don't see need for backing up 800
meg of nothing. Am I correct in doing this?

There's no *need* to back up the swap file, but unless the media you
are backing up to doesn't have enough room for it, there's no pressing
need to delete it. Personally, I've never bothered doing it, but I
don't see any reason why doing it should hurt.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

There's no *need* to back up the swap file, but unless the
media you are backing up to doesn't have enough room for it,
there's no pressing need to delete it. Personally, I've never
bothered doing it, but I don't see any reason why doing it
should hurt.

That's what I thought, Ken, but thought I'd ask since it is
obliquely relevant to where this thread went wrt to max size for a
single file on FAT32. I am OK for now, and probably will be for
some time, as a dual-layer DVD is what, 8.4 gig I think, and my
image files are under 6. It would be when I approach 8 gig even on
maximum compression in Acronis True Image that I'd begin to worry,
as I'd prefer not to have a multi-disc backup. Just too many places
to hiccup.

I think your logic is compelling, though. Since I am so far from
filling the DVD, in addition to what is on two separate external
HDs (for safety), I guess I'm pretty much wasting my time doing all
that for 768 MB or something that is being compressed anyway.

Again, thanks for the tips!

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken Blake, MVP added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

That's what I thought, Ken, but thought I'd ask since it is
obliquely relevant to where this thread went wrt to max size for a
single file on FAT32. I am OK for now, and probably will be for
some time, as a dual-layer DVD is what, 8.4 gig I think, and my
image files are under 6. It would be when I approach 8 gig even on
maximum compression in Acronis True Image that I'd begin to worry,
as I'd prefer not to have a multi-disc backup. Just too many places
to hiccup.

I think your logic is compelling, though. Since I am so far from
filling the DVD, in addition to what is on two separate external
HDs (for safety), I guess I'm pretty much wasting my time doing all
that for 768 MB or something that is being compressed anyway.

Again, thanks for the tips!

Any time.

 

[Lil' Dave]

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., > 127 GB
binary, when used with a Win9x/Me OS. For one thing 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.

There is a problem with the NATIVE defrag and scandisk in 98/98SE. Not with
Millenium's counterpart per posts at the 98 general newsgroup.

The data corruption problem lies deeper than the partition size when there
is file data in excess of 128GB. Whether the OS (98) can "see" another
partition is not of consequence. For example, a FAT32 partition at 120GB
and an NTFS partition at 66GB on a "200GB" capacity hard drive. If the
combined partitions have file data in excess of 128GB, any further writes in
the FAT32 partition by 98 will result in corruption of both the file system
and file data. The end recommendation of a hard drive of 120GB or less is
still the same. The reasons, however, are not exactly the same as you
stated. An example where this may be attempted is a 98/XP dual boot
configuration.
Dave

 

[Lil' Dave]

Don't use fdisk. There's a partition size reporting problem with its
partition when in excess of its intended maximum size. 98 - 64gb,
downloadable updated version - 128GB.

The hard drive makers provide a more current downloadable
partition/formatting tool for FAT32. May be part of a larger program
(within that program). May be in bootable media, or work within XP.
There's no problem that I'm aware of with these.
Dave