Vista and FAT32

I need to get a new laptop. The one I currently use has Windows 2000 dual
booted with Linux,

and I frequently use files on the Windows partition from Linux. Linux
support for NTFS is

still not fully developed, so I was wondering if it is possible to install
Vista on a FAT32

partition, or if it insists on NTFS? Presumably Vista is able to use FAT32
partitions even

if it is not possible to install on them?

Thanks,
Mark.

Mark wrote:
> I need to get a new laptop. The one I currently use has Windows 2000 dual
> booted with Linux,
>
> and I frequently use files on the Windows partition from Linux. Linux
> support for NTFS is
>
> still not fully developed, so I was wondering if it is possible to install
> Vista on a FAT32
>
> partition, or if it insists on NTFS? Presumably Vista is able to use FAT32
> partitions even

It is not possible to install Vista on FAT32 nor would you really want
to. The best way to handle shared data between Vista (and yes, XP) is by
creating a "buffer" FAT32 partition. Vista can read/write to FAT32 just
fine.


Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

I would not even think of putting VISTA on an existing notebook
computer. You are unlikely to find the specialized files for it.

But if you really must then check the manufacturer's website and
download the needed VISTA files -- if they are there.

"Malke" wrote:

> Mark wrote:
> > I need to get a new laptop. The one I currently use has Windows 2000 dual
> > booted with Linux,
> >
> > and I frequently use files on the Windows partition from Linux. Linux
> > support for NTFS is
> >
> > still not fully developed, so I was wondering if it is possible to install
> > Vista on a FAT32
> >
> > partition, or if it insists on NTFS? Presumably Vista is able to use FAT32
> > partitions even
>
> It is not possible to install Vista on FAT32 nor would you really want
> to. The best way to handle shared data between Vista (and yes, XP) is by
> creating a "buffer" FAT32 partition. Vista can read/write to FAT32 just
> fine.
>
>
> Malke

Thanks Malke. I wondered if that would be the case. No great problem though.

Mark.

"Hugh Wyn Griffith" wrote:

> I would not even think of putting VISTA on an existing notebook
> computer. You are unlikely to find the specialized files for it.
>
> But if you really must then check the manufacturer's website and
> download the needed VISTA files -- if they are there.
>
>

I'm actually looking at getting a new notebook with Vista, and dual-booting
that in the same way I do with my current one. As it happens, I have obtained
a copy of Vista and installed on my current machine (IBM Thinkpad R40) so I
can experiment with it, and it seems to be working fine (albeit a little
slowly, and without the Aero interface, but I was expecting that!) I have
kept Windows 2000 on there as well for actually doing anything at a useful
speed ;o)

I will take your advice and check the manufacturer's site for updated
software and drivers though.

Thanks,
Mark.

In article <BDD8EDC5-FC57-4E08-9452-91CE15F21409@microsoft.com>, Mark wrote:

> I'm actually looking at getting a new notebook with Vista, and dual-booting*
> that in the same way I do with my current one.

Note that there are complications if you try to add an earlier version (XP or
W2K) to a machine with a later version (VISTA). I've heard that people succeed
but it is certainly not as straightforward as the reverse order.

I'm a Thinkpad man at heart -- TP701C originally and then a T20 but the latter
crawled with XP. I'd have liked one of the X series if it had the optical
drive built in and didn't cost nearly as much as my T20 did when it came out
($4000!) so I went for the end result I wanted and bought an Averatec 3715 ED1
which is only 4 lbs and has the optical drive built in. It does all I need
reasonably quickly with XP and even with "only" 512MB.

They are not built like Thinkpads but for just over $600 on sale I can live
with replacing it if that becomes necessary.

In message <VA.000001fc.0076906a@unspam.tampabay.rr.com> Hugh Wyn
Griffith <huwyngr@unspam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>I would not even think of putting VISTA on an existing notebook
>computer. You are unlikely to find the specialized files for it.

I got Vista running on my over-two-year-old Gateway M675 without any
pain at all -- Everything but sound works out of the box, and sound
worked by installing the drivers, bypassing Gateways' installer.

Your experience will vary, as always, but it's certainly worth
investigating in many cases.
--
Insert something clever here.

In article <teruv29ac53hvp0hg991g4v2c4tse0q06p@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
wrote:

> but it's certainly worth investigating in many cases.

The problem with laptops is that investigating is often fatal! Absence
of Installation media, of recovery disks, and often absence of files
from the maker of the piece of equipment.

I sysop in the Compuserve LAPTOP Forum so I see the problems people are
having.

In message <VA.00000216.00373608@unspam.tampabay.rr.com> Hugh Wyn
Griffith <huwyngr@unspam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>In article <teruv29ac53hvp0hg991g4v2c4tse0q06p@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
>wrote:
>
>> but it's certainly worth investigating in many cases.
>
>The problem with laptops is that investigating is often fatal! Absence
>of Installation media, of recovery disks, and often absence of files
>from the maker of the piece of equipment.

That's true of any system.
--
Insert something clever here.

In article <d19003po1dbigohi2e1ud2tccrbj40bdek@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD
wrote:

> That's true of any system.

Much less with desktops than laptops, believe me.