Will Vista run on FAT 32 ?

I just ran the vista advisor from Microsoft and it said my 160 GB FAT 32 Hard
drive was acceptable. I was under the impression that Vista required NTFS.

I don't like the convert command because it loses some performance and has
other issues.

I can format and partition another 160 GB Hard Drive to NTFS and then use
Acronis to copy partions (it will copy the files from an image without
copying the FAT 32 format). The only problem is that it will take more than
four hours. Does anyone know of a quicker method?

See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc766145.aspx


"greggo" <greggo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4CB10223-3C85-4003-A50A-35AA593B84F9@microsoft.com...
>I just ran the vista advisor from Microsoft and it said my 160 GB FAT 32
>Hard
> drive was acceptable. I was under the impression that Vista required NTFS.
>
> I don't like the convert command because it loses some performance and has
> other issues.
>
> I can format and partition another 160 GB Hard Drive to NTFS and then use
> Acronis to copy partions (it will copy the files from an image without
> copying the FAT 32 format). The only problem is that it will take more
> than
> four hours. Does anyone know of a quicker method?

Format during the installation

peter

--
If you find a posting or message from me offensive,inappropriate
or disruptive,please ignore it.
If you dont know how to ignore a posting complain
to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate :-)

"greggo" <greggo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4CB10223-3C85-4003-A50A-35AA593B84F9@microsoft.com...
> I just ran the vista advisor from Microsoft and it said my 160 GB FAT 32
> Hard
> drive was acceptable. I was under the impression that Vista required NTFS.
>
> I don't like the convert command because it loses some performance and has
> other issues.
>
> I can format and partition another 160 GB Hard Drive to NTFS and then use
> Acronis to copy partions (it will copy the files from an image without
> copying the FAT 32 format). The only problem is that it will take more
> than
> four hours. Does anyone know of a quicker method?

Hi,

Vista has to install on NTFS. It can use FAT32 volumes for data storage, but
not as the system volume.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"greggo" <greggo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4CB10223-3C85-4003-A50A-35AA593B84F9@microsoft.com...
>I just ran the vista advisor from Microsoft and it said my 160 GB FAT 32
>Hard
> drive was acceptable. I was under the impression that Vista required NTFS.
>
> I don't like the convert command because it loses some performance and has
> other issues.
>
> I can format and partition another 160 GB Hard Drive to NTFS and then use
> Acronis to copy partions (it will copy the files from an image without
> copying the FAT 32 format). The only problem is that it will take more
> than
> four hours. Does anyone know of a quicker method?

Thank You. That clears up some confusion from the Microsoft site.

"Rick Rogers" wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Vista has to install on NTFS. It can use FAT32 volumes for data storage, but
> not as the system volume.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
>
> "greggo" <greggo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4CB10223-3C85-4003-A50A-35AA593B84F9@microsoft.com...
> >I just ran the vista advisor from Microsoft and it said my 160 GB FAT 32
> >Hard
> > drive was acceptable. I was under the impression that Vista required NTFS.
> >
> > I don't like the convert command because it loses some performance and has
> > other issues.
> >
> > I can format and partition another 160 GB Hard Drive to NTFS and then use
> > Acronis to copy partions (it will copy the files from an image without
> > copying the FAT 32 format). The only problem is that it will take more
> > than
> > four hours. Does anyone know of a quicker method?
>
>