On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 18:40:07 -0500 dmccunney <dennis.mccun...@gmail.com> wrote: > You might be*able* to. I encountered a guy years back adamant that > Win2K should be run from FAT32. He thought it was faster. (I thought > he was a fool.) > > Why you might *want* to is another matter. "A file system DOS can > read and write" is generally not a sufficient reason.
It might very well be faster, as FAT is a pretty simple filesystem that doesn't do journaling amongst other things. NTFS itself sucks compared to many full featured filesystems written for Linux. The main problem with using FAT32 with NT is you don't have permissions. Permissions and security are however not a big concern of your typical microsoft user to this day. Thus the option to format and install on a FAT partition is right there in the 1st stage text mode installer of both XP and NT 4 and is officially supported. Windows NT was designed to work with FAT. Windows NT 4 always first formats the install partition as a FAT16 filesystem and then if you selected NTFS at install, it converts the FAT16 file system online to NTFS on the first reboot after install. This typical Microsoftish genius idea, makes you jump through all kinds of hoops that include a third party online repartitioning tool to install it on an NTFS partition bigger than 2Gb. -- _______________________________________________ Freedos-user mailing list Freedos-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-user
