Does Vista Support FAT or only NTFS

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Tami N, May 25, 2007.

  1. Tami N

    Tami N Guest

    I've been reading several books on Vista and in one of them it indicated that
    FAT and FAT32 were supported in Vista but NTFS was preferred. Later in the
    same book it says that Vista only supports NTFS...just wanted to get some
    insight into this.

    Thanks
     
    Tami N, May 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Vista supports fat32/16 but can only be installed on an NTFS partition.

    --


    Regards,

    Richard Urban
    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
    (For email, remove the obvious from my address)

    Quote from George Ankner:
    If you knew as much as you think you know,
    You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
     
    Richard Urban, May 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Vista can only be installed on an NTFS partition. With Windows XP you could
    install it on a FAT32 file system or an NTFS file system. If you installed
    XP on a FAT32 file system you also had the option of converting the
    disk/partition to NTFS after XP had been installed. This is one of the
    differences between XP and Vista. Vista, however, doesn't install on a FAT32
    file system; it only installs on an NTFS file system.

    --
    John Barnett MVP
    Associate Expert
    Windows - Shell/User

    Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
    Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

    The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
    kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
    reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
    any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
    use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
    mail/post..
     
    John Barnett MVP, May 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Tami N

    Tiberius Guest

    Vista is itself FAT.. very FAT and bloated... a pig a rino, a hippo.... you
    get the drift.

    other than that it cannot install on fat32 like XP could.. but it can READ
    all kinds of fat and ntfs of course

    If Vista needs 10 gb to install, and vista really needs 20 gb minimum to
    function.. then you can imagine the problems.. since
    win2k and XP had a limit of 32 GB for fat disks...

    see here http://www.allensmith.net/Storage/HDDlimit/FAT32.htm

    you could say that they would extend this limit for vista... but they wanted
    to kill fat anyway....

    There is room for ONLY 1 FATSO in the Vista era... and that is Vista itself!
    :)
     
    Tiberius, May 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Tami N

    Tiberius Guest

    ahh yes there is another reason why they killed fat...

    They wanted to change the structure of vistas basic files, so
    they have done some tricks with the files by creating virtual paths for
    legacy programs to still function...

    basically they made a mess of this.. but anyway.... you could not do that
    with fat32.. only NTFS supports this.

    Everything about vista is a mess... so Im not surprised.
     
    Tiberius, May 25, 2007
    #5

  6. And, let me add, for the sake of completeness, FAT12 (the file system
    used on diskettes and very small hard drives).
     
    Ken Blake, MVP, May 25, 2007
    #6

  7. No, there was/is no such limit. The 32GB limit is the limit of how
    large a FAT32 partition can be *created*. There is no problem using a
    larger one if it is created externally.
     
    Ken Blake, MVP, May 25, 2007
    #7
  8. Tami N

    Tiberius Guest

    yes I know... windows ME could create fat32 partitions and format them with
    practically no limit
    *there are limits but there are no drives so big yet*.

    I also used partition magic, that unfortunatly is no longer compatible with
    vista.. a shame... norton bought it now and they killed it.

    but then again.. in fat32 you have the 4 gb file limit.. meaning that one
    file could not be larger than 4 gb..

    generally I like ntfs far better than fat32... some people liked fat32
    because they said it was faster...
    however I didnt notice any difference ever, and for me ntfs was always more
    stable..
     
    Tiberius, May 25, 2007
    #8
  9. Tami N

    roman modic Guest

    roman modic, May 26, 2007
    #9
  10. Like this?

    Love and Kisses,
    Doris

    --
    My Microsoft Hero (he loves this company!) ... http://tinyurl.com/yp9cn2
    Installing: Windows vs Linux ... http://tinyurl.com/ywqmbw
    BallmerBumBois: Frank, Julian, Richard Urban, Jupiter Jones, Harry Krause,
    Feliks Dzerzhinsky
    Sorry if I missed anyone, place your name here _________________.
     
    Doris Day - MFB, May 26, 2007
    #10
  11. Tami N

    Rich Guest

    sorta like your head, a head that thinks it knows and well you know? right?
    :)

    A wise man said, consider the source, and if you don't know the source,
    consider another source. :)
    A horse and buggy doesn't need ANY gas .. and well since a car needs gas ..
    well you can imagine...
    Or, maybe you can't imagine and that's precisely the nut of the problem :)

    VISTA installs on NTFS
    VISTA can read and write to FAT FAT32
     
    Rich, May 26, 2007
    #11
  12. Tami N

    Tiberius Guest

    I don't know anything compared to what needs to be discovered....

    I am learning an a tremendous speed though vast amounts of information.

    The brain is capable of infinite storage capacity.

    Since the total possible neuron and dendrite connection COMBINATIONS are
    far-far greater than all the atoms
    of all the universe.
     
    Tiberius, May 26, 2007
    #12
  13. Tami N

    huwyngr Guest

    and on some camera flash cards ......
     
    huwyngr, May 26, 2007
    #13
  14. Tami N

    huwyngr Guest

    My VISTA -- Business and then upgraded to Ultimate -- was installed in a
    partition created by Partition Magic 8 that is installed on my XP drive ....

    Works fine.

    But in view of what I hear, I would not change a partition with VISTA in it
    using PM.

    I understand that GPARTED is OK in VISTA but I've not run it.
     
    huwyngr, May 26, 2007
    #14
  15. Tami N

    Tiberius Guest

    yes if you create the partition first with partition magic its ok...

    I meant that PM is not compatible when you run it from within vista

    there is a Paragon disk manager that seems good
     
    Tiberius, May 26, 2007
    #15
  16. Tami N

    Rich Guest

    Let me translate if you will, "make up shit and believe it" ? :)

    that'll only get you so far


    Rich
     
    Rich, May 26, 2007
    #16
  17. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA512
    Not half as fat as your head. You can always be relied upon to post
    irrelevant and useless information. If you want to troll, why not go
    elsewhere. People like you were saying the same thing about DOS 3.0.

    In an era where you can buy a 750GB hard drive, the size of Vista is not
    an issue.

    - --
    Iron Feliks

    Trolls are like babies. After feeding, they get stinky.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFGWDnIIEgejQPpTu4RCvKOAJ4oPq3RyVJUr8wsx7cNjVTZ1AujnACeK7ci
    iYwf+BXqVsjgltdhoQ2glaI=
    =/yiU
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Feliks Dzerzhinsky, May 26, 2007
    #17
  18. Tami N

    Tiberius Guest

    its not about disk size...

    if you were more polite i would explain
     
    Tiberius, May 26, 2007
    #18
  19. Tami N

    Alias Guest

    True. Vista's issues are not really its size but its draconian DRM,
    risible UAC and ineffective "anti piracy" crap that can render your
    computer useless. And. lest we forget, the price in Europe is outrageous.

    Other than that, it's a pretty good XP SE.

    Alias
     
    Alias, May 26, 2007
    #19
  20. Tami N

    Tiberius Guest

    No its also its size.. but not the size on the disk.. who cares about that?

    Its the amount of CPU and RAM it needs just to make itself move....

    When I say bloat, thats what I mean... too many services too many dlls too
    many trash running
    in the background...

    you know what its like?

    Remember when you freshly format a pc and it is swift? Then after some time
    it gets slower and slower
    as you add programs that add drivers, shell extensions, services, dlls etc?

    Well vista is slow like that right out of the BOX! lol because it has so
    many things that want to work...
    then you can imagine adding your own stuff....

    I have another strategy.. >>> dont load unless you need, dont run unless you
    need.
    Keep the cpu and ram free for the applications...

    Even with tweaks vista is still slow and horrid....

    what a freakshow of an OS!
     
    Tiberius, May 26, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.