Just a qustion

[Agozer]

No

 

Some of us have more then 1 OS on 1 box.

 

As of right now, I got WinXP, WinXP 64 Beta, Win98, Windows 2k and SLACKWARE ^^.

wat is slackware

A Linux-type of thing.... I guess.

[montpics]

Is one of the Linux distributions or you can check it out to know more on here.

 

One add note, basically mine not only Win98, WinXP, also Mandrake (but couldn't get the sound work!) on my PC.

[Darken]

can`t I install win98 or winMe to ntfs system..... I try but fail I got now Xp pro...

[Ghosty]

Ya You Cant You Have To Use Win2000 And Up To Be Able To Use NTFS.

[montpics]

can`t I install win98 or winMe to ntfs system..... I try but fail   I got now Xp pro...

Normally you can't install Win98 and WinMe under NTFS format as both version can't support that version and still stick with old FAT32 format.

 

Use Google to help you to figure it out if you still insist want to install Win98 or WinMe under FAT32.

 

Another side note, you can also install WinXP or Win2000 too under FAT32 format.

Edited August 24, 2004 by montpics

[roofus]

Trust me, stick with NTFS. Here is my reasoning why:

 

FAT16 and FAT32 were a logical and efficient choice for smaller drives, and can actually be quite quick when it comes to accessing things. However, you will notice that when you are formatting drives with FAT32, as the partition size grows larger more and more space has to be left unallocated because the filesystem can't handle it. NTFS will only ever leave 8mb unallocated, at least until you pass the 2 Terabyte per partition limit

Next, you ever heard of a DVD Image? The binary dump of the data on a DVD? A single ISO file of a DVD can go over 4gb, and guess what the maximum filesize of FAT32 is? 4gb... after that, you run into some major problems.

If you lose stuff on an NTFS volume, it can easily be recovered. Lose it on a fat32 volume, chances are its just plain gone (I am talking due to filesystem errors not deleted files, which anyone can recover).

NTFS performance stays very consistent on small and large drives, which is actually pretty quick, but it is slower compared to fat for small drives. If your drive is bigger than 20gb at least however, I would say FAT32 isnt even an option if you are looking for your drive to perform.

Oh, and K`, what's with the sheer number of OSes? http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

[Wizard]

Oh, and K`, what's with the sheer number of OSes? 

if something is wrong in one OS, I can just go fix and replace on another. Win98 because I still got some games, Win2k because i can fix XP's problem, Win64beta because, well, I got a AMD 64 , and slackware because i'm a slacker.

[montpics]

Normally I partitioned my hard drive into a number of drives that would let me install an OS in a single drive. I'll never install another OS on the same drive as my friend told me better not to do so. It will corrupt the whole windows systems if anything bad happened.

 

Okay, back to roofus.....

Next, you ever heard of a DVD Image?  The binary dump of the data on a DVD? A single ISO file of a DVD can go over 4gb, and guess what the maximum filesize of FAT32 is? 4gb... after that, you run into some major problems.

Really? But sadly I haven't try to make full image of DVD completely as I am using Fantom CD to make DVD image. Can divide it into files.

If you lose stuff on an NTFS volume, it can easily be recovered.  Lose it on a fat32 volume, chances are its just plain gone (I am talking due to filesystem errors not deleted files, which anyone can recover).

Oh, that's why I can't recover back my old files. (Under Virtual PC that is while I was playing with some OS'es. )